Determinism is Dead. Long Live Determinism!
Faith and Philosophy
| June 21, 2008
| Tim
A century ago, most scientists believed the universe was deterministic -- meaning that if we could just know where everything was, and where it was going, we could use mathematics and physics to predict precisely what would occur. (And no doubt, we would soon be able to make such predictions.)
Determinism thus implied that both human beings and indeed the cosmos itself were mere machines -- there was no room in science for ideas like free will or a soul, or an influence from something outside the material universe.
However, like many materialist dogmas, determinism hasn't panned out.
The first chink in this bit of materialist armor came in the form of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: The very act of examining a subatomic particle changed it; thus we could only learn a particle's location or momentum, but not both. Of course, the uncertainty principle didn't undo the idea of a mechanistic universe -- it simply placed a few limits on our knowledge, where very small effects were concerned.
Next came the "hidden variables" question raised by quantum mechanics, where we discovered that particle pairs can appear in empty space with no preceding events or causes in this universe. This idea so offended Einstein (an ardent determinist) that he protested: "God doesn't play dice with the universe!" Alas, Stephen Hawking retorts: "Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen."
As Einstein's remark indicates, this was indeed an unsettling idea, which attacked the very foundations of determinism: the idea of a clockwork universe, where every event had a definite, calculable cause. On the other hand, quantum effects are small-scaled -- it was believed that such small effects could never have large consequences. So social planners, Utopians, and science fiction writers didn't need to take much notice: we'd soon be able to predict and control the weather, and perhaps even (as Asimov suggested in his Foundation Trilogy) do the same with individual or societal human behavior.
Sadly, again, the materialists were again wrong: Not long afterwards, chaos theory reared its Medusa-tentacled head, teaching us that many of these Utopian dreams, such as accurate weather prediction were not to be. Tiny effects, chaos theory said, can have huge impacts: the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China can change the weather weeks from now.
The father of cybernetics himself, mathematician Norbert Wiener, insisted that attempts to model the weather by crunching physics equations with computers, as if meteorology were an exact science like astronomy, were doomed to fail. Quoting the old nursery rhyme that told how a kingdom was lost "for want of a nail" (which caused the loss of a horseshoe that kept a knight out of a crucial battle), Wiener warned that "the self-amplification of small details" would foil any attempt to predict weather. One pioneer in computer prediction recalled that Wiener went so far as to say privately that leaders of the work were "misleading the public by pretending that the atmosphere was predictable. [1]
(I myself independently stumbled upon this: I was writing, for fun, a simple planet/sun simulator and discovered that although when two bodies were present a stable orbit always resulted. Yet with three bodies I got completely different results when I adjusted the simulation step interval -- even a little bit. At first, I wondered what I was doing wrong, but then discovered that changing one of the bodies' initial coordinates by a bezillionth of a unit radically altered the results. There was no absolute way to say what happened with a given configuration: an extra pebble on a planet could apparently make the difference between its being spit into space or crashing into another.)
The genie was now permanently loosed from the bottle: Limits on our ability to measure things, and very, very tiny events (including quantum-scaled events) could, in certain systems (weather, the human brain, systems having three planetary bodies) change the outcome in large and inherently unpredictable ways. For those paying attention, determinism was, effectively, dead.
Alas, not everyone has been paying attention. A few weeks ago, The Boston Globe carried an article in which Peter Dizikes, a science journalist, lamented that most people still don't 'get' chaos theory -- and popular culture isn't helping. It seems the need to believe in determinism doesn't die easily (which, I guess, is understandable, given how many political views rest upon deterministic assumptions):
[MIT meteorologist Edward] Lorenz, who died in April, created one of the most beguiling and evocative notions ever to leap from the lab into popular culture: the "butterfly effect," the concept that small events can have large, widespread consequences. The name stems from Lorenz's suggestion that a massive storm might have its roots in the faraway flapping of a tiny butterfly's wings.
Translated into mass culture, the butterfly effect has become a metaphor for the existence of seemingly insignificant moments that alter history and shape destinies.... In 1990's "Havana," Robert Redford, a math-wise gambler, tells Lena Olin, "A butterfly can flutter its wings over a flower in China and cause a hurricane in the Caribbean. They can even calculate the odds."
Such borrowings of Lorenz's idea might seem authoritative to unsuspecting viewers, but they share one major problem: They get his insight precisely backwards. The larger meaning of the butterfly effect is not that we can readily track such connections, but that we can't. To claim a butterfly's wings can cause a storm, after all, is to raise the question: How can we definitively say what caused any storm, if it could be something as slight as a butterfly?
And the "butterfly effect" doesn't merely apply to weather, of course:
Moreover, Lorenz also discovered stricter limits on our knowledge, proving that even models of physical systems with a few precisely known variables, like a heated gas swirling in a box, can produce endlessly unpredictable and nonrepeating effects.[*] This is a founding idea of chaos theory, whose advocates sometimes say Lorenz helped dispel the Newtonian idea of a wholly predictable universe.
[* Again: even a simple simulation of gravity among three astronomical bodies displays this characteristic indeterminacy.]
Quite aside from the question of whether things are predictable, we have the philosophical implications of determinism. If we are but meat-machines (predictable or not) with no soul or "free will", then why is it that even the most ardent believers in this notion (atheists) live in complete contradiction to their alleged beliefs?
Of course, we're glad for this atheistic "hypocrisy": I could imagine nothing scarier than a person who really felt (and consistently lived out) his or her belief that killing other people was no more or less morally important than killing a plant or crushing gravel. Saying human beings are "special" or "interesting" doesn't give me much comfort either, being a subjective, aesthetic preference. (Undoubtedly, some human beings will be less "special" or "beneficial" than others. And indeed, some environmentalists take this to its logical conclusions, arguing global complexity (diversity) is more important than human complexity -- so a lot of humans need to go!)
Denyse O'Leary quotes an interview where Richard Dawkins is confronted this with "hypocrisy" -- where he says one thing and lives quite another. To his credit (unlike many novice atheists who don't even apparently understand their own alleged belief system) he recognizes and confesses the contradiction -- though he also seems to admit being a bit confused about the subject:
Questioner: ... you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn't to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book from the initial condition of the big bang it was set that this would be the product of what we see today.
Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It's not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I've ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write, has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn't seem to make any sense. Now I don't actually know what I actually think about that, I haven't taken up a position about that, it's not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism....
You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won't start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that's what we all ought to... Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is "Oh they were just determined by their molecules." It's stupid to punish them. What we should do is say "This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced." I can't bring myself to do that.
No, Richard: Neither can I. But only one of us lives his life in complete contradiction to the metaphysical stance he proclaims as truth.
Denyse also cites a couple of wonderful bits from G.K. Chesterton, written back when materialism was still widely accepted -- and daring to disagree was "unscientific" or "a contradiction", rather than something you'd read from a science reporter at The Boston Globe:
Some Determinists fancy that Christianity invented a dogma like free will for fun -- a mere contradiction. This is absurd. You have the contradiction whatever you are. Determinists tell me, with a degree of truth, that Determinism makes no difference to daily life. That means - that although the Determinist knows men have no free will, yet he goes on treating them as if they had.
The difference then is very simple. The Christian puts the contradiction into his philosophy. The Determinist puts it into his daily habits. The Christian states as an avowed mystery what the Determinist calls nonsense. The Determinist has the same nonsense for breakfast, dinner, tea, and supper every day of his life.
The Christian, I repeat, puts the mystery into his philosophy. That mystery by its darkness enlightens all things. Once grant him that, and life is life, and bread is bread, and cheese is cheese: he can laugh and fight. The Determinist makes the matter of the will logical and lucid: and in the light of that lucidity all things are darkened, words have no meaning, actions no aim. He has made his philosophy a syllogism and himself a gibbering lunatic.
Christian doctrine has long taught that we live and move inside "God" who constantly imposes his will across creation. Today (check again in a century) science believes that we are constantly surrounded by subtle events which have no cause emanating from our universe -- and some scientists even speculate (contradicting to the idea that such events can have no effect) that our entire universe may have originated from such an event.
What do these events mean? Is each a point at which our universe splits (again and again) into a near-infinity of other possible universes, with each possibility being played out in an alternate reality? Or are these events, perhaps, the way "God" (the causative force of the universe) continually and subtly manifests his "will" upon our spacetime continuum?
Aren't both suggestions equally speculative, and equally unprovable?
If so, then what's the difference?
The former, a flavor of multiverse theory, was created for philosophical reasons: to enforce the "principle of mediocrity" which insists there's nothing "special" about human existence. Of course, while insisting on the allegedly tremendous importance of this philosophical principle, the materialist also lives in complete contradiction to its much larger implications: treating human life as quite special indeed, and "free will" as real.
Of course, the other conjecture I suggest above also has a philosophical motivation. But I admit it freely, and at least it accords with my own beliefs, as well as even the actual, lived-out beliefs of the very atheists who would undoubtedly object most strenuously to it.
Christian doctrine has long taught that we live and move inside "God" ...
Is this a mistype? This sounds like pantheism.
Actually, it would be closer to "panentheism", in the strictest technical sense of the word. (Though I broadly reject what most contemporary proponents of the idea are doing with it.)
"God did this [created the world and mankind] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own [Greek] poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'"
(Paul, in Acts 17:27-28)
It's a simple implication of the characteristic of omnipresence: if God is everywhere, then it's also fair to say that he's all around everyone. It's also not unheard of to hear God referred to as the sustainer of creation (e.g. certain Catholic doctrines).
Pantheism is the belief that all is God -- in which you could never have a real notion of sin. (Since everyone is actually God, but God has somehow forgotten this.) That's quite distinct from merely saying that God is everywhere, or has access to all parts of space.
That makes sense. Thanks!
You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism? Determinism is the idea that future actions are completely based of prior actions, with the implication that if we had perfect knwoledge than we would be able to make perfect predicitons. It is interesting to note that of the three objections, all of them are about knowledge.
Also, the alternative to determinism ISN'T free will- it is randomness.
People are just machines. So what? You seem to think that is bad- but if people have souls, it is perfectly okay to kill them! It seems to be an absurd statement, but if killing people is only a temporary problem because of an afterlife, than murder is more excusable- it is only a mild inconvinience. Needless to say, your life isn't consistant by that principle.
By contrast, if people are machines, if you break them they aren't coming back- our repair skills aren't that good.
Also, the alternative to determinism ISN'T free will- it is randomness.
Please consider that this is an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot see a pattern is not de facto proof (in the academic sense) that no pattern exists.
Your conclusion is an assumption based off of your own beliefs, definitions and mental constructs and not based off of an analysis of the material world. It is very hard to prove that a thing does not exist.
I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, but to point out that you are speaking based on quite a bit of faith. This reinforces what Tim said about religious people tending to realize when they are speaking based on faith, while atheists assume that they are speaking based on established and proven fact, even when they are speaking on faith.
Also, please explain why you think "A clockwork universe" refers to something different than "A deterministic universe." As far as I can see, they refer to the same thing.
the alternative to determinism ISN'T free will- it is randomness.
Determinism is an all-encompassing statement about how the world works. As such, it can be undone by many things: The existence of a deity, the existence of anything supernatural, the existence of a soul or free will, or (yes) even mere randomness.
The idea there is only one "alternative" to determinism (your belief, apparently) is as absurd as saying there is only one "alternative" to Christianity. Christianity can false if God doesn't exist, or isn't good, or even if he is both but some other faith describes God more accurately. Similarly, other worldviews have more than one condition which could falsify them. Determinism is no exception.
You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism?
Ryan is right: I simply used "clockwork universe" as a synonym for determinism. I believe that is the customary meaning (if not, please provide evidence). Even Richard Dawkins, above, seems to disagree with your unique definition. You should write to him about that.
But even if not, you should engage the actual argument being made, rather than redefining it to your tastes.
People are just machines. So what?
I believe that was explained above. Please read.
May I remind you I've asked you repeatedly for evidence for this belief of yours? So far, you don't seem to have any. As Ryan, says, it seems you accept this idea only on "faith" -- and seem have far less evidence supporting your beliefs than most theists have for theirs. This is consistent with my ongoing experience of atheism as a highly irrational, deeply faith-based belief system.
if people have souls, it is perfectly okay to kill them! ... Needless to say, your life isn't consistant by that principle.
Um, Samuel? That chain of 'reasoning' is yours, not mine. I don't subscribe to it, for reasons I'll explain in a moment. Your argument here is not a necessary implication of the belief we have souls -- but what I've stated, above, is a necessary implication of determinism. Even Richard Dawkins admits as much.
You might consider thinking about and addressing that argument, rather than pretending it hasn't been made.
if people have souls, it is perfectly okay to kill them! It seems to be an absurd statement, but if killing people is only a temporary problem because of an afterlife, than murder is more excusable- it is only a mild inconvinience.
For the one killed, yes, that would be true -- but certainly not true for his or her loved ones, or for the society which might have benefited from that individual's contributions. The other problem with murder, from a theistic view, is not that experience ends once the body dies -- thus denying the self further experiences. (Theists are fully aware they believe in an afterlife.)
Instead, it is taught that only God has the power to decide when human life should end: it's not something one person may typically independently and arbitrarily decide for another. There are select times when killing is allowed (such as after being justly convicted of murder) -- otherwise, people must be allowed to live out the days of their lives. Wrongly taking away the years of life assigned to another is not a lesser offense than stealing his or her property.
By contrast, if people are machines, if you break them they aren't coming back- our repair skills aren't that good.
And that would be a problem, or refute Richard Dawkins' statement, why, exactly? All you're saying is that when a person is dead, they're dead. That's also true of chickens, cows, pets, and even certain old machines whose parts are no longer available. Saying that doesn't get us to some distinction as to why we should treat humans as something fundamentally different than animals or non-repairable machines.
You made a similar argument with your earlier "but they feel pain!" objection. It doesn't seem you've yet considered or responded to the flaws pointed out in that argument either.
It is an argument from ignorance- there are, quite literally two possible options.
1) Are actions are entirely determined by our nature and our nurture (note, even if we do have a soul it is included in nature- after all, it would be as inherent a part of you as your brain).
2) Actions have a component not determined by nature and nurture.
The differance between a clockwork universe is we can make the predicitons- a determinist may or may not have that as a possibility, but the future is entirely determined by the past.
Let me give you an analogy. You are dumped in a holo simulator of... say a Denny's. Each time it runs for a set period of time, and then it wipes you memory and starts over, making sure to reset your body (blood sugar levels, urgency to use the bathroom, etc). Now, one of two things can happen.
1) Each round can be the same- you enter the restaurant, wait for a server, sit down, look at the menu, pause and choose an order. Each time you do every action the same way, taking the same amount of time. An external observer would think you are a robot based on the constancy of your behavior.
2) Each round is differant. Your pauses are differant, your order is differant, your expressions are different. Congradulations- you have schizophrenia!
A God would be covered by determinims. A soul would be covered by determinism. Supernatural could be covered by determinism. Only free will and randomness aren't- free will because it is the opposing concept and randomness because it is its opposite. It is worth noting is the randomness is low enough level, people would still be deterministic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe
What do you know- the definitions are differant... again. You seriously need to learn how to use a dictionary- you get a wrong definition EVERY time.
Here is the evidence. Not to mention that you seem to believe that machines don't have souls. Please provide evidence for that assertation- wait you can't- souls don't exist. I'm not the one pulling assumptions on faith.
You do realize that your whole justification is a piece of nonsense? I'll explain so you can understand-
1) When you die you go to an afterlife.
2) Said afterlife is great if you are a good person, bad if you are evil.
3) Most people are good.
4) People continue to have experiences in the afterlife.
5) People meet up with their loved ones in the afterlife.
6) God is all knowing and powerful so all is according to his plan.
So, in short, yes, people will be unhappy, but it will be a short problem. I mean, a short sacrifice is acceptable for a long term gain? Even if people in this world suffer, they more than make up for it in the next. Heck, killing someone and their family painlessly would eliminate your objections- they all wake up in heaven, no worries! Stealing property on the other hand causes them a hastle, worry, pain and suffering.
There are only several possible objections to that.
1) The afterlife sucks.
2) People have a "destiny"... which you can amazing overule. Irrelevant to benefits though
3) People have free will... which I showed was a nonexistant even with God and souls and the supernatural.
4) There is no afterlife.
5) There is something special about this world (see 1- the afterlife sucks)
That is it. None of them are workable except for 4, which is what I use. Note that there are people who actually argue this way and you can't refute them using your arguments. You choose 4 or you choose the Vox Day way.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
Why should we treat people decently? Because I'm not a sociopath who is intent on the destruction of all that is true and good? Because I have a part of my brain that whispers to me "Sam- be a good guy. Look at their faces. You want them to like you!" Because I don't enjoy being an evil psychotic monster who feeds on fear and pain?
Basically, morality is the price I pay for living in a group. It was programmed into our heads by long millenia of social existance, where the moral people worked together, the assholes where blackballed when they showed up and the psychopaths were... well, just read this
http://www.executedtoday.com/2007/10/31/1589-peter-stubbe-sybil-stubbe-and-katharina-trump/
You believe in an afterlife and either randomness or freewill- which means death isn't a big deal and you could do ANY behavior at any time. Needles to say, ethics is a problem for you, not me.
It is an argument from ignorance-
What is an argument from ignorance? You like saying this (quite often) but you've never justified your allegation. More words you like to chant when unpleasant evidence appears?
there are, quite literally two possible options... 1) Are actions are entirely determined... 2) Actions have a component not determined by nature and nurture.
Gee, no kidding. That's the entire thesis of the article above.
The differance between a clockwork universe is we can make the predicitons- a determinist may or may not have that as a possibility, but the future is entirely determined by the past.
Samuel: I realize you like to have your own "private definitions" of words and phrases -- definitions which have nothing to do with the way I clearly used the term above, or the way others have used it. Fine, and so nice of you to share.
But it's as if I wrote an article on the how fruitflies attack citrus fruits, and you responded by trying to redefine "citrus fruits" to mean "tangelos." (a) You're showing how deeply out of touch you are, (b) you're also not advancing the conversation.
I don't mean to be blunt, but I frankly don't care about the multitude of odd definitions which seem to fill your reality. And I don't think other readers (heh, both of them) will either. So please stick to the topic at hand: If you can't understand what is being said, then please ask. Otherwise, I'm asking kindly that you use the definitions in play, instead of spending all your energy trying to change them.
Sadly, this is a trait I see rather frequently in atheists: the belief that reality itself, or an argument about it, can be altered by redefining words in whatever manner pleases the atheist. It is, after all, the core impulse behind Flew's insistence that "atheism" take on the meaning he understood as "agnosticism", and Dawkins' insistence that we all call atheists "Brights."
And rather telling, also, as it's nothing more than the impulse to resort, at each turn, to straw man fallacies -- from those who insist they're "rational."
A God would be covered by determinims. A soul would be covered by determinism.
Again, no. Please read the definition that normal people use. When something is "determined by preceding events or natural laws" there is no room for intervention by something supernatural, including God or a soul.
I shouldn't have to spend a half-dozen paragraphs pointing out that you're again speaking, quite literally, nonsense. And I don't mean "stuff I disagree with" -- I mean trying to change the meanings of words to taste.
'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'Unimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
'Unimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone, 'important - unimportant - unimportant - important - ' as if he were trying which word sounded best.
What do you know- the definitions are differant... again. You seriously need to learn how to use a dictionary- you get a wrong definition EVERY time.
Samuel: did you even read these? They completely disagree with the definitions you're asserting. In contrast, "determinism" matches exactly how I'm using it, and "clockwork universe" is at least largely consistent (I don't mention a creator who put it in motion, and Wikipedia's definition is historical, not contemporary.)
Another argument by fiat?
Not to mention that you seem to believe that machines don't have souls. Please provide evidence for that assertation- wait you can't- souls don't exist. I'm not the one pulling assumptions on faith.
Well, you're tangling up two assertions. The first is whether machines have souls. I cannot prove they don't, and presume you can't either. But, unlike you, I admit that I believe many things I cannot prove, and cannot provide evidence for.
You, on the other hand, said you only believed things you could prove, or things for which you have evidence. Of course, you don't.
So the difference here is your statement about your own beliefs is, in fact, false. It's not just unsupported by evidence -- it's provably false. As such, it would also appear I have more evidence for my beliefs than you can offer for yours. Which is especially funny, given your insistence about the alleged importance of evidence for you.
The second issue is whether souls exist at all. Here you say again "souls don't exist". Again, I have asked you for evidence for your assertion. Again, you seem to think that simply repeating your belief is a form of evidence.
It is not.
You do realize that your whole justification is a piece of nonsense? I'll explain so you can understand-
Then you go on to write as if you're assuming, again, that I don't know that theists believe in an afterlife which allows people to continue having experiences -- presumably proving that theism allows murder.
Samuel: I just addressed this argument above. Please read it: murder is wrong, in a theistic view, NOT because experiences end at death, but because we're not allowed to arbitrarily "play God" with the lives of others.
Simply repeating your argument (again) that the soul continues (as if I was unaware of this belief among theists) doesn't refute this counterpoint. You speak as if everyone else were dense, but it seems that -you- are having serious trouble hearing and responding to the points of others.
Why should we treat people decently? Because I'm not a sociopath who is intent on the destruction of all that is true and good?
Do you think the American "progressives" were sociopaths "intent on the destruction of all that is true and good"? Your argument seems to be that as long as people have good intentions, they won't do evil, or treat people like animals.
But history says the opposite: The "progressives" thought eugenics was a great idea because they shared your belief that humans were simply a kind of machine. And they certainly did have good intentions, and were trying to increase, not decrease the amount of truth and goodness in the world.
And although parts of society rejected their views, generally they were (and still are -- Margaret Sanger and HG Wells, for example) lauded as wonderful "enlightened" leaders. Society didn't keep them in line at all: rather, they were in the process of changing society itself.
Basically, morality is the price I pay for living in a group.
Agreed, but (a) there are people who don't let groups of people determine their morality (many of them are powerful leaders), and (b) there are groups whose morality entails treating people as mere machines -- discarding inconvenient, trouble-making, or malfunctioning ones.
(This is an argument that I see from repeatedly from atheists: "Of course my atheism implies X, but thankfully, this group of non-atheists will keep people with my beliefs in line!")
Again, none of your protests here refute (or even touch on, in most cases) the point above: that materialism necessarily implies that people are no different than other machines. Even if it were true all groups required you to act otherwise, that doesn't imply their demand is sensible or true. If they say: "Act like human beings have intrinsic, objective value, or we'll shun you!" that doesn't imply their view is true, nor that you should necessarily humor their delusion. It also doesn't imply that a person who disagrees will act that way when no-one is looking.
And of course, many atheists don't: When they've subject to society's rule, they go along, but when they get into power, well, anything goes. And the same is true for societies (groups) which have bought, as a whole, into materialistic beliefs.
It was programmed into our heads by long millenia of social existance...
Again, your beliefs are refuted by the plain evidence: Look at history. Is it more filled with people acting decently towards one another, or is it, rather (especially outside of Europe and the US) more filled with genocide, oppression, and the belief that "might makes right"?
Do you have any idea how rare democracy has been, historically, and how fragile and vulnerable it still is today?
You believe in an afterlife and either randomness or freewill- which means death isn't a big deal and you could do ANY behavior at any time.
Samuel: You might want to learn some basic attributes of theism before lecturing about what it teaches. Here you seem to think that I can do "ANY behavior" simply because I believe life continues after death.
Really?
Ever hear of "judgment"? It means that the force which created the universe has a moral aspect, and is not at all indifferent to wrongdoing. Most theists (and many non-theists, oddly) believe in this concept. So they can't simply do "ANY behavior" -- bad behaviors carry a penalty.
Again, even if your argument WERE true of theists, it still doesn't refute the argument about materialism. You seem to think that if I say: "Your yard is a mess" that "Well, someone else's yard is a mess too!" is a refutation.
No, it isn't. You might both have problems. If there's some person whose beliefs allow or even encourage bad behavior, that doesn't refute the charge that yours do also.
So to summarize: You've offered novel definitions of "clockword universe" and "determinism". You & I both claim that the others' definitions are wrong. I have offered evidence (even quoting the definition) to this effect, you simply insisted it was so.
You still haven't provided evidence for your belief that no supernatural exists, implying that you believe things without evidence, and insist otherwise. Which means you believe not merely faith-based or unproven ideas, but many provably false ones.
You ignored my rebuttal to your "theists can do anything!" argument, and repeated it again. But, to your credit, you finally attempted to rebut the implication that determinism would allow an atheist to treat people as machines by saying that society wouldn't let the atheist do that, and also by insisting that good intentions will prevent this. I refute both arguments by pointing to history, and pointing out that societies sometimes adopt the same views.
Nor did you apparently even attempt to refute my argument that determinism -- meaning the definition used by myself, Dawkins, and as defined in the dictionary -- has been roundly refuted by science.
Batting a zero here so far, Samuel.
I answer in order of your responces.
I believe that I was responding to him accusing me of arguing from ignorance- he fails to show how there are any alternatives to determinism and randommness. So technically it isn't an argument from ignorance, just him repeating himself louder. So technically, not ignorance, just "complete lack of argument". The magic wishes away the problem- that is the whole of your argument. When I point out it can't you shut your ears and say "LALALA- I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
You do realize that is also my point? If we weren't using common assumptions, communication would be impossible. However, you vere of for some unknown reason- you don't realize free will is an impossiblity.
I was and AM using the wiki definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe
Clockwork universe is deterministic, determined by the laws of physics and reducible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe
Determinism is that there is an unbroken chain of causes.
You CONSISTANTLY accuse me of not knowing the definition when the sources you cite disagree with you! Honestly, I have NO IDEA what you are reading- but it ISN'T my responces. We aren't "Being productive" because YOU keep on making shit up.
And theen there is the lie that Flew made up the new definition of atheist. Have you considered the fact he was wrong? You do realize that almost noone had heard of him before he became a deist- not to mention the fact that atheism has that meaning as part of its STRUCTURE. Honestly, I have kept asking you to give a word that means "lacks a belief in God" that isn't atheism or agnosticism (which was invented by Huxley). You have not do so to know. I am forced to assume you are taking that mans ONE statement and assuming it is gospel truth and that EVERY other usage EVER is wrong.
Seriously, which is more likely? That there is a major atheism which diseminated a new definition and you are the only person who caught on to the conspiracy? Or that Flew himself doesn't know much about atheism- he is a philosopher who changed his mind because of the design argument! If you are an atheist and can't rebut the design argument... honestly, I have no clue how you can do that for decades.
Finally, redefining words is NOT a strawman (another word you missuse, like rational)- it is unacceptable only if you don't make it clear what usage you are using OR use two differant usages to hop back and forth.
You really don't understand? Supernatural things ARE covered by determinism. Chain of prior occurances? FIRST CAUSE? You begining to see a pattern here? There is nothing about supernaturalism that exempts it from determinism- supernatural things are simply those not bound by physical laws. I'm not refering to physical laws- I'm refering to logic.
And again you accuse me of not reading the definitions, and again my usage is accurate. I said
"You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism? Determinism is the idea that future actions are completely based of prior actions, with the implication that if we had perfect knwoledge than we would be able to make perfect predicitons. It is interesting to note that of the three objections, all of them are about knowledge."
And your objection, while consitantly calling me an idiot has failed to show that this is wrong.
Wiki says "philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences", which, low and behold matches mine. I can't go into any more detail- you are, quite literally not seeing the same things I am, because they are exactly the same!
You keep on accusing me of faith because you are to foolish to realize you have repeatedly mischaracterized my arguments. It is so nice to make things up to fit your preconceptions- I should try it some time.
Souls don't exist because the supernatural doesn't exist. Ohter people have gone into more depths about the logical problems with souls- the fact that everything can be adequately explained by materialism is a big point.
And, of course, you fail to adress why machnines can or can't have souls... which means that you completely ignored my point AND you admitted you hold this belief for no reason whatsoever.
Your justification for morality is we aren't allowed to play God... because God says so. In other words, divine command theory. See Vox Day for why this is insane.
As long as people have good intentions AND a view of reality that matches reality, THAN they will do good. It isn't hard you know.
Actually progressive were the middle class looking for ways to control the poor. They used a variety of social programs in the hope of reducinbg support for socialism and eugenics in an effort to eliminate the feeble minded. Not surprisingly, since it was a psedoscience with little basis in reality, they managed to commit lots of evil. But don't worry- guess who stood up to them? The church? Not really- in Germany they managed to stop the killing of the handicapped AFTER they got through the first hundred thousand. No, there were two groups that managed to stop it- the communists who rejected it as mad and decadent borguis science and one other country- England- had it stopped by a libertarian member of parliment. Interestingly enough, labor supported the first bill as an effort to cull the weak of their consitituents could get a bigger share of the pie, but it passed with no teeth and was shot down the second time.
Or, short version- your knowledge of history is, again, depressingly shallow. You declare eugenics is due to determinism despite the fact that 1) this is a logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
and 2) it is almost certainly false- Hitler, the Ur example was NOT a determinist.
It is important to note another mistake you made- sure, Sanger and Wells had those views. So did Teddy Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson- here, link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#History
People with a) are sociopaths and psychotics- we need to watch them. Also includes extremely selfish bastards- we need to watch them too. What? You think you can just make people learn it?
b) I treat people as machines, as does my namesake. Heck, I'm pretty sure alot of people with aspergers do to. It isn't a problem. Sure, it is annoying when our knowledge about other people's programming is lack, but with enough practice we can make it indistuishable from the heuristic.
I also find this... insane
"(This is an argument that I see from repeatedly from atheists: "Of course my atheism implies X, but thankfully, this group of non-atheists will keep people with my beliefs in line!")"
Seriously, where did you hear this? Atheism ONLY implies there are no Gods and hence all theistic religions are worng. Technically Scientologists are atheists- but they use a theistic system of morality. You seem to be arguing that materialism and rationalism have that consequence. Aside from an http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
it also wrong because it is false. I follow rationalism and materialism and guess what? I am moral. You deal with that by accusing me of using faith either due to misusing words or blatantly making things up.
People don't have intrinsic value. Did I ever say that? No, I didn't. You are attacking a strawman, again. The only reason I deal with people having value is rule utilitarianism.
Atheists are in power in every communist country ever, and almost all of Western Europe, as well as Japan. Interestingly enough, the communist countries did poorly and the Western European ones are doing great. Maybe it is because... THEY AREN'T COMMUNIST! Seriously- don't be so dense. It is freaking obvious that atheism isn't to blame given that much of Europe has atheist ruler or (my personal favorite) many of the communist countries got WORSE after theism came back- Yugoslavia is a rare valid example.
I'm going to call you an idiot again, because, quite simply, you say idiot things. You seem to think that "Is it more filled with people acting decently towards one another, or is it, rather (especially outside of Europe and the US) more filled with genocide, oppression, and the belief that "might makes right"?"
This is an easy one- the decently part. What? You expected violence to be the overwhening majority? While I may think most people are good only for turing food into shit, I do realize that people spend most of their time acting decently toward each other. Heck, look at the world now- we have sporadic wars and violence, but for the vast majority of people things are normal every day. Sure they are poor, but if violence and oppression were constant, you'd soon run out of people due to infighting. Look at the US- we have police brutality, murders, abuse, etc- but for the overwhelming majority of the time things are perfectly normal.
Democracy is rare for a variety of reasons. It was, however the first form of governance- hunter-gahter tribes use (and some still do use) direct democracy, where all adults vote on all issues and the majority rules. Democracy became rare later because of rising inequality and because monarchies evolved from them- first you have a big man, than a boss, than a chief, than a king, etc. It grew out of the need for security (from outsiders, but also each other- people had to learn how to avoid murdering complete strangers) and public works, and worked best with a central authority. Democracy reared its head due to realization that the system sucked if you aren't the King.
So you only act good because you will be punished. Acting good because of fear of punishment ISN'T morality- it is selfcontrol.
The universe has no moral aspect and is indifferant to our behavior- I take that back- Indifferant gives us WAY too much credit. To get an idea of how much we are completely unrelated, imagine the universe... the size of the universe. Humanity, if you scrunched it up really well, could fit into a sufficiently large cave- we can pack ever into Burma is we give them only elbow room as it is. We are insignifant to the Earth as it is- sure, we muck around with the atmosphere, but that only is a problem for life. The rock itself is completely unaffected. The closest we got was Three Gorges Dam- and that is only measurable with our most delicate instruments.
I wasn't refuting theism with the argument with morality- I was showing your argument was bunk. This is ironic because you are rejecting the fallacy of consequences, as you should, even though you have used it repeatedly.
Mu beliefs don't encourage bad behavior- you repeatedly strawman them. Here is a hint- were the communists bad because they were atheists? Or where they bad beccause they were communists and their ideas didn't mesh with reality?
Lets summerize- you, confident that you are correct, ignore, starwman and attempt to literally BS your way to victory while claiming that nothing I have said has any value... and ignoring the fact your responce bears only a cursory resemblance to anything I said.
You accuse me of using novel definitions when I use the ones given by wiki (If you can't see it, realize that I paraphrased- the wording doesn't have to be exactly the same for it to mean the same thing).
Than you accuse me of not presenting any evidence the supernatural exists. That is right- you want me to prove a negaitve. About, of all things, Hogwarts. Well, I can't prove Harry and his friends are an author of J K Rowlings imagination to your satisfaction and that is probably because you wouldn't accept any proof. In case you aren't aware, the suppernatural is anything that violates physical laws- since physical laws, by default, apply to everything, you have to show they exist, otherwise, by default they don't. I'd go into more detail, but you are quite literally asking me why I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, magic, BFM, FSM and a whole host of other things. And you accuse me of faith for not believing in them and saying they don't exist!
Than you accuse me of flip flopping on morality and machines. I do treat people like macines- I'm doing it right now. I'm hoping the learning and input center is not so corrupted that you can process the data and come to a valid conclusion.
As for "theists can do anything" look at history as you are so fond of saying. For the most part, theists, not atheists, are kept in line by societal sanctions.
I refuted it in the first responce. You said it wasn't the definition used by science. I'll clarify because you seem not to get it- all your objections are based on KNOWLEDGE. Uncertainty is knowledge, choas is knowledge (you can't seek up the situation the same each time- if you could you get the same results)- in fact the one that isn't is quantum mechanics. Of course, that is randomness and (surprise surprise) it has absolutely no effect on people- it occurs in vaccums. And pops out of existance as fast is it popped in. I'm willing to admit the universe is random, not deterministic, but that itself has no effect on people being deterministic.
Of course, if the randomness smooths out (which it appears to do) than the universe is deterministic.
I'm not the one batting a zero here. I have to say though that our conversatins have made me begin to enjoy life more- who knew editting a term paper could begin to seem fun? Thanks.
I believe that I was responding to him accusing me of arguing from ignorance...
You are correct. I completely wrong in my allegation here: didn't see Ryan's argument. My apologies! I'll leave that to you & him.
It is very hard to prove that a thing does not exist.
I agree: so when we say we're sure certain things don't exist, we are often admitting we believe things without evidence.
The magic wishes away the problem- that is the whole of your argument.
That magic wishes away what problem, exactly? Be specific please.
Samuel, earlier: You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism? Determinism is the idea that future actions are completely based of prior actions, with the implication that if we had perfect knwoledge than we would be able to make perfect predicitons.
Ryan: Also, please explain why you think "A clockwork universe" refers to something different than "A deterministic universe." As far as I can see, they refer to the same thing.
Samuel: The differance between a clockwork universe is we can make the predicitons
Samuel, now: I was and AM using the wiki definition... Clockwork universe is deterministic, determined by the laws of physics and reducible... Determinism is that there is an unbroken chain of causes.
First, you say deterministic and "clockwork universe" are different -- never mind that the question is how I used the word (I assured you it was simply meant as a synonym), not what you'd like it to mean.
Then, you say the difference is we can make predictions in a "clockwork universe" but not necessarily in a "deterministic" one. But how is this distinction supported? The "clockwork universe" is defined as one where (quoting the Wiki article) "everything is determined". Yet the dictionary definition of determinism is that acts of will or nature "are causally determined".
And of course, if things are determined, then why can you make predictions in one case, but not in another? This is your assertion, so the burden here is on you to explain or justify it.
Samuel: A God would be covered by determinims. A soul would be covered by determinism. Supernatural could be covered by determinism.
Tim: Again, no... When something is [quoting dictionary] "determined by preceding events or natural laws" there is no room for intervention by something supernatural.
Samuel: You CONSISTANTLY accuse me of not knowing the definition when the sources you cite disagree with you! Honestly, I have NO IDEA what you are reading- but it ISN'T my responces.
I am reading your responses and the dictionary. You INSIST that belief in the supernatural are all allowed under "determinism". I am quoting the definition in play, from the dictionary, which says determinism means that events are "casually determined by natural laws" -- meaning nothing supernatural can influence an outcome. (Natural and supernatural being different, of course.)
If that wasn't clear enough, Wikipedia adds: "Causal determinism is associated with, and relies upon, the ideas of Materialism and Causality". Last I checked, materialism was the opposite of believing in or allowing for the supernatural.
I don't understand why this is so hard: If the dictionary/common definition excludes anything but natural laws, and you insist otherwise (allowing, say, the supernatural), then you're using a different definition.
That's why I keep saying that.
And theen there is the lie that Flew made up the new definition of atheist.
I've already cited the article. I even went to the trouble of quoting it for you, and providing you with a hyperlink. I'm sorry if you've been somehow unable to read that response or are unwilling to provide counter-arguments besides "You lie!!!"
Have you considered the fact he was wrong?
Wrong about what? About whether he was wanting to redefine the word? Wrong about how people used it at the time? Again, Samuel, I've already explained this: I was alive at the time, myself. I know how it was being used: I was debating atheists even back then. I was also reading the classic apologists such as Russell, who used the word the exact same way. (And I have asked you to do the same if you doubt me.)
I've said all this to you before.
You do realize that almost noone had heard of him before he became a deist...
Are you out of your mind? Samuel, he's one of the more influential atheists in history. As I've pointed out to you already, when you quote your cherished definition of "atheism" (or see an atheist web site talking about "the presumption of atheism"), you're quoting him. That's how influential he was (especially among atheists), Samuel. You called yourself a "strong atheist"? Again, that's Flew's invention. First, you quote his definition, applying it to yourself -- and then you say he was a nobody!
Look, read his Wikipedia article for yourself. "Prominent atheist"... "fame"... debated C.S. Lewis, etc. Was regularly called to represent the atheist side in public debates, much like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris does now.
Look at a pre-2004 blurb from his book "Atheistic Humanism" (1993): "one of the world's most distinguished philosophers" ... "one of the world's best-known philosophers". Know the "Prometheus" book line? The didn't pick unknown losers to write their stuff. Sure, he was still only a philosophy prof (not a pop star) but to say he was an unknown, and not one of the leading atheist voices of his times, is utterly false.
Tim (on other thread): ... "infidel", "unbeliever", "doubter", certain shades of "heathen", etc -- if you need single-word terms. And of course, the easiest one-word term for nonbeliever is... (drum roll) "nonbeliever." (Doh!) But there's no reason to think an idea must be conveyed in only one word. Plenty of ideas fail to have a single word which sums them up in any particular language.
Samuel: Honestly, I have kept asking you to give a word that means "lacks a belief in God" that isn't atheism or agnosticism (which was invented by Huxley). You have not do so to know.
See above, please. And, again, even so: why does it matter? In English many words have multiple meanings, and there are many concepts which need a short phrase to represent them. And I have no idea why you want to exclude "agnostic", since that was (for most the 20th century) the word people actually used. The fact Huxley defined it as something else doesn't prevent that from being a fact.
Seriously, which is more likely? That there is a major atheism which diseminated a new definition and you are the only person who caught on to the conspiracy?
Well, I'm certainly not the only person to have caught on. Many atheists and theists admit there are two different definitions out there now. The only question is which usage dominated before the split, and which one is still the common person's most likely understanding of the term.
Look at the historical etymology yourself: "571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" Read Betrand Russell's essay: "Am I an Atheist or Agnostic?" (1947). Which ever you'd prefer to categorize him as, note that he views and speaks of them as distinct categories, not synonyms. Madeline Murry O'Hare (1962): "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any." G.K. Chesterton (1874-1963): "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." Issac Asimov (1982): "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have." Carl Sagan: "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." Douglas Adams: "'I'm very firmly agnostic,' said Douglas in 1984. 'I have terrible rows with my girlfriend who is a convinced atheist. This seems to me irrational. There's no evidence either way.'" Etc.
My point isn't about who's atheist, agnostic, or believer: simply note the way they're using 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Again, I know this because I've read lots of old books by old atheists and Christians. Up until the mid to late 1980s, everybody was fairly clear about using "atheism" to mean an assertion of God's nonexistence, and agnosticism (typically) to mean that one wasn't sure.
When you insist history was not this way, I laugh because I was alive then, Samuel.
Finally, redefining words is NOT a strawman (another word you missuse, like rational)- it is unacceptable only if you don't make it clear what usage you are using OR use two differant usages to hop back and forth.
A straw man is when you answer a different argument than your opponent is making. A change in meaning becomes fallacious if, by doing so, you're trying to change what your opponent is saying in order to make their argument weaker, so that you can seem to "win".
For example, when you attempted to defined "faith" as belief in contradiction to evidence, and then used that definition as to represent what believers meant when they talked of "faith", that was a straw man.
When you insisted I meant "invented" by saying most Western atheist's beliefs had 'originated' in Christianity -- and I explained repeatedly I did not -- and then attempted to refute "invented" -- that was an example of the straw man fallacy.
When I quoted Chinese scholars admitting that the educated elites were generally atheistic, and you insisted I must have meant "culture", and then suggested that "culture" must exclude illiterate persons (and thus felt you were refuting some point I'd made), that was an example of the straw man fallacy.
When you attempted to argue that I believe in an afterlife -- but omit that I also believe in a judgment -- and then use that to omission imply my beliefs permit me to arbitrarily kill anyone -- that is a straw man. (Though perhaps unintentional, in that case.) You are not arguing from my actual beliefs, but a mistaken set of them you have imputed to me in order (you think) to "win" an argument.
But if you simply just think I'm using a word wrong, but don't attempt to substitute your meaning for what I'm saying, then that's not a straw man. That's just a disagreement about the best definition.
You really don't understand? Supernatural things ARE covered by determinism. Chain of prior occurances? FIRST CAUSE?
Again, you're mistaken about your history: When determinism (in the modern sense) was most popular, most atheists believed the universe was infinitely old. They didn't believe there had to be a first cause at all -- to the contrary, they felt it would undermine their view.
For example, Bertrand Russell:
"The grounds in favour of determinism appear to me overwhelming..." [link]
"There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination." [link]
I should probably have included it in the article above, but the discovery of the big bang (an apparent "first cause") was one of the things which undermined or refuted determinism -- rather than being, as you imagine above -- an intrinsic part of its definition.
Look at yourself: You have assured me of your belief in determinism, and also went to great pains to attempt to refute any first cause argument (leading you to that "closed universe" gaffe!). Well, now we learn, since (according to you) the very definition of determinism implies a first cause, you should have been attempting to PROVE, not refute a "first cause" scenario! :-)
You begining to see a pattern here? There is nothing about supernaturalism that exempts it from determinism...
Yes: The emerging pattern is that I explain, repeatedly, that "determined preceding events or natural laws" (from the dictionary, again) excludes the supernatural (see the word "natural"? -- as does "laws") and you continue to ignore my response.
There is nothing about supernaturalism that exempts it from determinism- supernatural things are simply those not bound by physical laws.
Yes, that's right: supernatural things ARE NOT bound by physical laws. So if something is "determined by laws", that's a statement it is NOT therefore being influenced by anything supernatural.
And your objection, while consitantly calling me an idiot...
I don't believe I've ever called you an idiot. Though, in all honesty, I can see how a reader might infer it from my rebuttals. ;-)
In truth, I think you're an otherwise reasonably intelligent (though poorly-educated, for which I blame our schools, not you) person who is positively allergic to admitting error.
It is so nice to make things up to fit your preconceptions- I should try it some time.
You mean when you insisted hunter gathers valued monogamy? Or when you insisted that "culture" couldn't include peasants? Or when you insisted Flew wasn't influential? Or when you insisted that astrophysics taught there was nothing outside our universe? Or insisted I had misunderstood Godel? Or above when you insist I have repeatedly called you an idiot?
Yes, you really should try to "make things up" some more. You're much too grounded in reality. ;-)
Souls don't exist because the supernatural doesn't exist.
I am the Easter Bunny!
All your bases are belong to us!
War is peace! Love is hate! Teaching is dead!
Love your form of "proof"! It consists of saying something over and over without offering even a smidgeon of evidence.
Ohter people have gone into more depths about the logical problems with souls...
Okay! I'll see your "other people" and raise you: "WELL, then MY other people REFUTED your other people's arguments! So there! Ha!"
LOL! Yes, we don't have to think for ourselves, do we? It's so funny to say you need evidence or proof for everything and then just say: "Well, I guess someone else has solved this problem for me." Yeah? Well there are Christian apologists who, I'm sure have told me your beliefs are false, so I'll just take their word for it.
Is that "faith"? Then why it's it "faith" when you do the exact same thing, Samuel?
You're so cute.
Tim: The first is whether machines have souls. I cannot prove they don't, and presume you can't either. But, unlike you, I admit that I believe many things I cannot prove, and cannot provide evidence for.
Samuel: And, of course, you fail to adress why machnines can or can't have souls...
Again, I admit I can't prove this one. Not in the slightest. I can't even offer evidence for this belief of mine. Didn't you read that? There it is. Please try again. I admit I take it on faith that machines have no soul. But of course: I've never pretended there's anything wrong with having faith in some unprovable things.
But you pretend you do not. So if you don't take things on faith, then it is YOU who must explain, and provide evidence for, why machines have no soul, if you believe that.
Is this really so hard for you to understand?
Your justification for morality is we aren't allowed to play God... because God says so.
Yes: I completely admit that I take the belief we shouldn't murder people somewhat on faith. That's why I call it a "religious" belief. Unlike most atheists I've chatted with, I know what I can prove and what I can't. I admit I take things on faith, they pretend they don't.
Contrast this with your own assertion that you should believe nothing without evidence -- and your ongoing inability to provide evidence for much of what you believe. Better to simply admit "I can't prove this" than actually contradict your own beliefs at every turn.
Contrast, also, with Dawkins, who is sure we are just machines, but then admits he lives in complete contradiction to his own assertion. Better to have a philosophy you can live with, than constantly contradict your core beliefs.
Actually progressive were the middle class looking for ways to control the poor.
Undoubtedly, many "progressives" were middle class, then, just as they are now. But I wouldn't call the leaders -- physicians, social activists, scientist, and famous writers -- "middle class."
Not surprisingly, since it was a psedoscience with little basis in reality...
Afterwards, they always say: "Well, it was pseudoscience!" But at the time, it's always: "You are so ignorant! You're opposed to science!" Today we see the same thing: Oppose global warming, you're "against science." But a century from now, the same kind of people who backed it today will sniff: "Well, that was just pseudoscience" -- while promoting another fad.
But don't worry- guess who stood up to them? The church?
Well, yes, actually:
[Margaret Sanger] said the cancellation [of an event designed to promote black abortion] resulted from “concerted action on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.” She even accused the church of threatening officials with the withholding of promised federal and state funds needed to hold the Exposition. [1]
The Catholic Church opposed eugenics from the outset, and helped to ward off eugenic social legislation in much of Europe. However, the Catholic viewpoint held little sway in Protestant America. With Buck vs. Bell providing the full approval of the U.S. Supreme Court, state legislatures continued to enact new eugenic sterilization laws up until WWII. [2]
Pope Pius XI of the Roman Catholic Church denounced surgical intervention in reproductive matters, making the more Catholic regions (such as Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritime provinces) an inhospitable place to lobby for eugenic sterilization of the disabled. The introduction of progressive, left-leaning governments in Alberta[citation needed] and B.C. also had a hand in strengthening eugenic legislation. Left-leaning parties were eager to embrace new ideas, especially those that held a promise of economic turnaround. [3]
This provision is a particular aid to the Roman Catholics, who have been combating the sterilization law. Although Hitler himself is a Roman Catholic, that church, as everyone knows, has been the source of a large part of his opposition, and it has taken a strong stance... But the Nazis seem, as this scientific leadership becomes more and more prominent in their councils, to be avoiding the misplaced emphasis of their earlier pronouncements on questions of race, and to be proceeding toward a policy that will accord with the best thought of eugenists in all civilized countries and against sterilization in Germany. [Journal of Heredity, 1934]
Not really- in Germany they managed to stop the killing of the handicapped AFTER they got through the first hundred thousand.
I wasn't aware that the Roman Catholic church was actually in a position to control Germany policy. Too bad: lives could have been saved, no?
Samuel: You declare eugenics is due to determinism... it is almost certainly false- Hitler, the Ur example was NOT a determinist.
I should be clear: while most prominent eugenicists were atheists (and thus determinists) you are right: there were a few who had some kind of religion -- generally of a "progressive", "liberal", or "new age" variety. Hitler strikes me as being in the last category.
My argument is that deterministic/materialistic thinking was a significant factor in eugenics, NOT that all eugenicists were determinists.
this is a logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
Not in the slightest: You have to pay attention to context. You had said that good intentions were sufficient to prevent people from treating each other like machines. So I pointed to eugenics as a counter-example, and noted that eugenicists had good intentions. There's nothing fallacious at all there.
The link you cite (please read it, Samuel) explains that appeal to consequence is fallacious when you argue bad outcome proves the opposite is true, or vise-versa. I haven't done that. I'm not saying (nor have I said): "The badness of eugenics disproves determinism." (To the contrary, I'm only saying it's harmful here. My refutation of determinism is contained in the article at the top of this page.)
Tim: And although parts of society rejected their views, generally they were (and still are -- Margaret Sanger and HG Wells, for example) lauded as wonderful "enlightened" leaders.
Samuel: It is important to note another mistake you made- sure, Sanger and Wells had those views. So did Teddy Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson...
Please the context, again, Samuel. You had insisted that society would stop people from doing bad things. I pointed out counter-examples, and noted they were praised, not shunned.
Adding a few more famous and well-loved names to this list only strengthens my point, Sammy.
(Wow! You sure got me there! Gee, I can't put anything past you, can I?)
I treat people as machines, as does my namesake.
Promise me you'll inform prospective girlfriends of this view when you meet them? I'm sure they'll admire that quality deeply. (Or do you mislead people about your views when convenient, Samuel?)
Heck, I'm pretty sure alot of people with aspergers do to. It isn't a problem.
LOL! Well, you're the first person I've met who defended his approach to life by likening it favorably to a cognitive deficit or mental illness.
I also find this... insane:
... "Of course my atheism implies X, but thankfully, this group of non-atheists will keep people with my beliefs in line!" Seriously, where did you hear this?
Both you and the last atheist to visit before you did. When I pointed out that materialism could lead some people to treat humans as mere machines, you said that society would stop you from doing that!
Atheism ONLY implies there are no Gods and hence all theistic religions are worng.
Yes: I know. "Atheism teaches nothing." You insist that you treat people like machines because you know there's no supernatural -- but hey, ATHEISM doesn't teach that. Nor do atheists! Nope. No implied beliefs here, none at all.
People don't have intrinsic value. Did I ever say that?
No, but it's fun to hear it from you.
(a) Guess that's another thing you believe which you haven't inferred your atheism.
(b) Right! That's precisely my point. Atheists like you end up believing people have no intrinsic value: only utility. If their existence helps you, they get to stay. If not, well, no big deal about killing them.
That was pretty much what the eugenicists thought too: "Useless eaters", they'd call the unproductive members of their society.
Tim: And of course, many atheists don't: When they've subject to society's rule, they go along, but when they get into power, well, anything goes. And the same is true for societies (groups) which have bought, as a whole, into materialistic beliefs.
Samuel: Seriously- don't be so dense. It is freaking obvious that atheism isn't to blame given that much of Europe has atheist ruler
Samuel: You're going to have to start reading what I actually write. I didn't say that atheism produces bad economics. I didn't even say that atheists were all bad leaders (nor that religious people were all good).
I simply said that when atheists get into power, without any checks on their behavior, many of them act badly because there are no restraints on their beliefs. European leaders aren't even in the position I spoke of, as their offices have many checks on power.
Now, as it is you're saying that Europe has been economically successful when led by atheists. Really? Looks to be having some pretty serious problems to me. Chirac was more secular than Sarkozy (a professing Catholic, I hear), and France did quite badly under Chirac. UK Labor was more materialistic than Thather or Blair -- yet the UK did better under the latter two.
Again, I don't have any specific position, but if I had to guess, I'd suggest that socialism doesn't work very well economically (neither as Socialism nor Communism), and that the more secular a person is, the more they're attracted to socialism.
But you're the one who has asserted that European countries are doing well with atheists leaders, so I'm hoping you'll provide a list of Western European and Japanese atheists who have implemented sound economic policies.
I'm going to call you an idiot again...
Well, at least now we're clear on who calls who an idiot. Projection, anyone?
After this, you argue that history is mostly characterized by societies filled with people who act decently towards each other.
Well, I guess we just disagree. I learn that throughout the history of the world, parents have usually thrown out unwanted babies, that most societies have practiced slavery, that more primitive societies were in a constant state of war, and that any form of government except oppression is a brand new thing and think history was characterized by bloodshed and oppression.
You look at that (or don't even know about it), and think people are mostly good.
I don't: I think people are mostly selfish, and that most societies have not, on the balance encouraged good values.
Guess we just see it differently.
BTW: Please read the comment rules. I've asked you not to swear on my blog. Once more, and you're gone.
Sure they are poor, but if violence and oppression were constant, you'd soon run out of people due to infighting.
Well, as long as the birth rate outstrips the murder rate, I guess that's pretty good evidence that people are good. Wow, yet another irrefutable argument, Samuel.
So you only act good because you will be punished.
Another straw man argument? There are lots of reasons to act good: I've never said theists act good only because they'll be punished. I simply answered your contention that an afterlife would allow people to kill with impunity.
Acting good because of fear of punishment ISN'T morality- it is selfcontrol.
Heh! Well, I'm not God, so I care more if people are self-controlled than what their motives are. If someone has good intentions and kills innocent people, I'm concerned about that. If someone has bad motives, but starts a company which makes everyone better off, then I'm happy about that, from a societal point of view.
The universe has no moral aspect and is indifferant to our behavior... We are insignifant to the Earth as it it
Great! Well, I thank you for admitting this. This will be very useful when I need an illustration of how often atheism leads its adherents to devalue human life and treat people as no better than objects.
Lets summerize- you, confident that you are correct, ignore, starwman and attempt to literally BS your way to victory while claiming that nothing I have said has any value...
LOL! You're too funny, Samuel. Look, when I think an argument of yours is wrong, I provide counter-evidence, and quote your exact words.
Than you accuse me of not presenting any evidence the supernatural exists. That is right...
No, I accuse you of not presenting any evidence the supernatural does not exist. Very different things. But in the event that was just a typo (it seems to be, given the follow up): Great! Then you now finally admit you believe things without supporting evidence. Thank you!
Than you accuse me of flip flopping on morality and machines...
Where?
As for "theists can do anything" look at history as you are so fond of saying. For the most part, theists, not atheists, are kept in line by societal sanctions.
So you are saying that societal sanctions haven't kept as many atheists in line? Well, if you're arguing atheists step out of line more often (seems to be true, given that the secular have a higher crime rate) then I won't argue.
Otherwise, I find it unlikely: The more religious a person is, the more they're concerned about religious beliefs, not societal sanctions.
Tim: Nor did you apparently even attempt to refute my argument that determinism -- meaning the definition used by myself, Dawkins, and as defined in the dictionary -- has been roundly refuted by science.
Samuel: I refuted it in the first responce... I'll clarify because you seem not to get it- all your objections are based on KNOWLEDGE. Uncertainty is knowledge, choas is knowledge (you can't seek up the situation the same each time- if you could you get the same results)- in fact the one that isn't is quantum mechanics.
I don't see how that's a rebuttal. Good heavens, I don't even see how that's a coherent group of sentences. "Uncertainty is knowledge"? Well, that's a new one. I guess if that makes sense to any readers, they'll agree with whatever it is you're attempting to say here.
As best I can guess, you're trying to I've only said the future is merely unknowable -- but then you seem to contradict yourself when you admit my third point (quantum mechanics) implies something quite different. So you're not even making a coherent point here: if its wrong to focus only on knowledge, then I haven't done it, by your own admission.
Of course, that is randomness and (surprise surprise) it has absolutely no effect on people- it occurs in vaccums.
Oh! My! Gosh!
Who was calling who an idiot, again?
DUDE! That's the funniest thing you've said since you insisted your beliefs weren't based on "any logical system."
Samuel: ALL of spacetime is subject to quantum effects, not just a vacuum. (And yes, that includes inside people as well.) Look, my sneering and ignorant friend: "The laws of quantum mechanics dictate that the subatomic world is swimming with "virtual" particles. Everywhere in space, particles are constantly winking in and out of existence. For instance, around every electron there is a shroud of virtual particles that hide the electron's true charge." [source]
Why do I bother? You know nothing, and you'll just call me "idiot" again for attempting to teach you the most basic things about your own alleged belief system.
And pops out of existance as fast is it popped in. I'm willing to admit the universe is random, not deterministic, but that itself has no effect on people being deterministic.
The universe is random. People are machines. People can't be affected by randomness. How does the universe know not to affect people with this randomness, then? The universe is awash with randomly-emitted particles (tune a radio to static to hear some) which cause mutations, etc. And you're sure none of it can affect people?
(Your list of religious beliefs grows ever longer!)
Of course, if the randomness smooths out (which it appears to do) than the universe is deterministic.
LOL! Right! Chaos theory doesn't exist. Just like Godel's incompleteness theorem doesn't apply to you. Do you get to opt out of gravity as well? How about entropy? ;-)
Note: this is a long post and this site undoes tags after a hard return. So sorry if italics or blockquotes gets undone at any point.
I believe that I was responding to him accusing me of arguing from ignorance- he fails to show how there are any alternatives to determinism and randommness. So technically it isn't an argument from ignorance, just him repeating himself louder. So technically, not ignorance, just "complete lack of argument". The magic wishes away the problem- that is the whole of your argument. When I point out it can't you shut your ears and say "LALALA- I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
You made a positive assertion that there were no patterns in what you call randomness.
A positive assertion of absence is very different from saying "I don't know, but I see no evidence."
It is, in part, this difference which was the subject of the original discussion.
This puts aside for a moment whether actual evidence exists or not.
You say The magic wishes away the problem- that is the whole of your argument. When I point out it can't you shut your ears and say "LALALA-
But you must have evidence to assert something. You do not. Therefore you cannot "point out it can't"
Since you've gone and made a positive
claim, you must have positive evidence to back it up. Not just "I don't see how..." or "there is no evidence for"
This is what Tim is talking about. Ignoring for the moment the evidence contrary to your position,
you repeatedly swtich back and forth between "there is no evidence for x" and "X has been proven false." Those are very different statements and not interchangable.
However, you vere of for some unknown reason- you don't realize free will is an impossiblity.
You are going, again from "there is no evidence for x" to a positive assertion made without any evidence.
This is a crucial slip.
The magic wishes away the problem-
On the contrary, I'm fine asserting my position is true without invoking the violation of any known physical laws.
You do realize that is also my point? If we weren't using common assumptions,
communication would be impossible. However, you vere of for some unknown reason- you don't
realize free will is an impossiblity.
The issue is that this is an assumption based on your premises and not
something that you have proven or can prove or disprove with real-world experimental evidence.
You cannot prove it, but you take it on faith. Which is fine, except
that you don't seem to realize that you take it on faith. It is a direct product of your assumptions,
and not the product of any experimental evidence. You think it's been positively proven. What's more,
you have asserted that the universe was physically deterministic and that states could be determined with certainty by people, which is a belief which has been disproved using repeated, solid experimental evidence. Note, I am talking about physical determinism,
and not philosophical determinism in a chaotic universe (i.e. free will is an illusion manufactured
by our brain despite a chaotic universe.) But that such contrary
evidence exists doesn't even seem to interest you. If you base your views on evidence,
why not be interested in evidence which might change your views? Could you please summarize
why we believe that Quantum Mechanics and Chaos theory disprove physical determinism so that
we at least know you've heard what we're saying and understand it.
Can you provide experimental proof that
there are no patterns in randomness? If you cannot prove that ( in the
academic sense of proof) you are making an assumption here that no patterns exist
and then not acknowledging the assumption. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Samuel, you said
You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism?
You said; "Clockwork universe is deterministic, determined by the laws of physics and reducible."
That is entirely true of those deterministic views of the physical universe which philosophers have put forward.
You also said; "Determinism is that there is an unbroken chain of causes."
That also precisely describes those who believe in a clockwork universe.
I suppose that you could say that "Hard determinists" (in the context of philosophy rather than physics)
hold that responsibility for our actions is an illusion, even if quantum physics and chaos theory
make such things totally unpredictable from a human viewpoint. However the context of your statements strongly suggested
that you were referring to the physical and not the philosophical definition of determinism. You asserted if
we had enough information, we could predict the future. This is like saying that if gravity didn't exist, I could float. Theoretically this may be true, but it has no possible analog in the physical world.
Some have also tried to assert a 'hidden variables' theory where quantum uncertainty was hidden from people but exposed to some deity. Of course, you have as much cause for believing that view as you do for believing that there are patterns in randomness.
Re: randomness vs. determinism
you said Let me give you an analogy.
The third possibility is that there is a pattern to what you see as randomness.
If you cannot offer material disproof of that assertion, then it
is a possibility. You don't have to believe it. You don't have to believe that it is likely. You can disbelieve it on faith.
But you need to admit that you cannot disprove it, and have no evidence that it is false. (It is quite difficult to prove false or true, so isn't helpful in the predictive scientific sense.)
You CONSISTANTLY accuse me of not knowing the definition when the sources you cite disagree with you!
Samuel - The sources Tim has cited have agreed with him. They've disagreed with you, and you've often gone back and forth between one meaning of a word and another (such as between the strong and weak meanings of the word proof or the meaning of faith.)
And theen there is the lie that Flew made up the new definition of atheist. Have you considered the fact he was wrong?
I'm willing to consider that. But if such a view is true then there should be some evidence of it. You claimed
to be an expert in history, and in arguments with theists. So this should be an easy thing for you to offer evidence for.
atheism has that meaning as part of its STRUCTURE.
Atheism has meant different things in different times. In the Roman world, Christians were considered atheists
because they didn't worship the local gods. It's important to be careful with arguing from definitions.
What we need here is historical evidence of how the word was used.
I am forced to assume you are taking that mans ONE statement and assuming it is gospel truth and that EVERY other usage EVER is wrong.
So give an historical citation that argues against Tim's assertion. Simple enough. Is it wrong to ask for evidence of your
assertions, Samuel?
Finally, redefining words is NOT a strawman (another word you missuse, like rational)- it is unacceptable only if you don't make it clear what usage you are using OR use two differant usages to hop back and forth.
I agree.
But there is at least one other instance when it is unacceptable.
If you define a personal definition for a word and try to claim that
your definition is what other people mean when they say the word, that certainly is a strawman (And not useful for conveying your meaning either. It tends to serve no honorable purpose.)
In such cases, it's important to make very clear that your definition is a peculiar and personal one and that
others disagree with it.
You really don't understand? Supernatural things ARE covered by determinism. Chain of prior occurances? FIRST CAUSE?
They can be covered by determinism, certainly. But that belief is not required.
Your assertion that quantum changes 'smooth out' is not true of all systems to the point that all systems can be predicted as if they were deterministic in the physical sense. You've asserted earlier that it was a technological problem, which led me to believe you didn't understand QM. I'm trying to figure out if you do now. Yes, some systems are newtonian. Some aren't. You do understand the butterfly effect, right, which is why QM is important to disproving physical determinism?
Could you please just acknowledge that, so I don't go on thinking you might have missed it.
Ohter people have gone into more depths about the logical problems with souls- the fact that everything can be adequately explained by materialism is a big point.
Right or wrong, you seem to have seriously misjudged the extent of how well we can currently model neural systems.
And, of course, you fail to adress why machnines can or can't have souls
For my own part, I'm simply ignorant on the matter. I'll venture some opinion when
they can actually make AI which behaves like a person. I feel I have good reason not to trust speculation, since it's failed and underestimated the problem so often.
Your justification for morality is we aren't allowed to play God... because God says so. In other words, divine command theory. See Vox Day for why this is insane.
When possible, could you please summarize what someone says rather than just saying 'see so and so.'
This really gives me no information. I've worked hard to try and summarize long posts for you when I could
so that you didn't have to read through the whole thing. It's only common courtesy. Thanks.
Not surprisingly, since it was a psedoscience with little basis in reality, they managed to commit lots of evil.
But alcoholism does run in families. I agree that Sanger seems to have been ineffective in her goals. The Nazi's "will to power"
didn't give them the long lasting power they hoped for. But is the only problem with eugenics that the science needs to be improved? Good intentions + good science = good eugenics?
That moral methodology may keep us from re-committing past mistakes, but not from inventing new ones.
Tim:"(This is an argument that I see repeatedly from atheists: "Of course my atheism implies X, but thankfully, this group of non-atheists will keep people with my beliefs in line!")"
Sam: Seriously, where did you hear this?
Sam, You said that you were good, in part, because you wanted others to like you. This presumes a society which
likes moral people or at least one which relies on social forces and people who are difficult to trick. That works to an extent for our society. It begs the question of why this is true in the first place. Given the modes which people are capable of
operating in (such as in the USSR or Rwanda) morality being honored by our neighbors cannot really be taken for granted.
Perhaps you wouldn't seek approval from such an immoral society. But more importantly,
would other people who were not raised in our country did not absorb its values, and shared your materialistic worldview be influenced? This is not about the truth of religion, per se, but about the results which it produces.
Atheists are in power in every communist country ever, and almost all of Western Europe, as well as Japan.
Interestingly enough, the communist countries did poorly and the Western European ones are doing great.
Maybe it is because... THEY AREN'T COMMUNIST!
In regards to the consequences of belief systems (not truth value), it seems fair to ask which is more effective at preventing
a communist takeover; Certain specific religions or no religion at all.
Czarist Russia was
nominally theistic, but seemed pretty perverse by Christian standards. And it fell. I'm sure many atheists are personally
moral. My question is; how effective are they when they apply their morality in a political setting? How well do they self-organize for moral purposes? I've demonstrated
that religion has some effect on human behavior, though it certainly doesn't reform all people who claim to adhere to it. Religion
can be a substitute for more clumsy legalistic forms of control.
I'm going to call you an idiot again, because, quite simply, you say idiot things.
Careful Sam, you've made quite a few mistakes yourself here on these threads. You used an incorrect definition of faith as
"belief against evidence," seem to have misunderstood Quantum Mechanics, misunderstood what the phrase "closed universe"
meant in an article you cited, seemed to support physical determinism from a human perspective, and so on. You didn't want me to be condescending
so I'll try and avoid it. But you are going to wind up getting tarred with your own brush. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by
calling people idiots. I've found that a shower of evidence works for most people who want to listen.
If you have it, lay it on the table please.
While I may think most people are good only for turing food into shit,
I'm honestly curious on what basis, if any, you exclude yourself from that list.
Democracy is rare for a variety of reasons.
It was, however the first form of governance- hunter-gahter tribes use (and some still do use)
direct democracy, where all adults vote on all issues and the majority rules.
I agree that tribes were more egalitarian (often in a communal sense) and often, though not always, fairly democratic.
This is from my fairly limited understanding of things. Democratic communal societies of more than a few hundred people or so tend to go awry unless they break into subgroups. And smaller societies than that are militarily vulnerable.
Democracy reared its head due to realization that the system sucked if you aren't the King.
I'm not sure if that was sufficient, though. The French undoubtedly knew that as well, but the French revolution didn't produce a democracy, despite its emphasis on 'reason' and dislike of royalty.
Here is a hint- were the communists bad because they were atheists? Or where they bad beccause they were communists and their ideas didn't mesh with reality?
I'm willing to believe that quite a few rulers in quite a few countries from democracies to dictatorships, are power hungry and self serving.
My question is what belief systems best restrain such rulers. Why were Russians so willing to tolerate political violence in the first place. It's true even today. A friend of mine who went there describes how willing
people are to pay protection money and so forth.
Lets summerize- you, confident that you are correct
We all believe our beliefs. That's why they are beliefs. But one repeated point here was the difference
between faith and proof; atheists and theists operate on faith. Theists acknolwedge it. Atheists are less likely to.
but you are quite literally asking me why I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, magic
I haven't asked why you to believe in faries. Unicorns exist
apparently. ;-)
And magic, meaning violation of natural laws, is not required for the things I've argued for.
Of course, if the randomness smooths out (which it appears to do) than the universe is deterministic.
Now, the debate over free will versus determinism took a new turn about 70 years ago with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the introduction of quantum mechanics. The Uncertainty Principle established that the basic behavior of the universe was fundamentally random. That is, the most basic processes that underlie the functioning of the universe are unpredictable. This blows determinism right out of the water. If you can't even be sure where an electron is or where it's going, then you certainly can't be sure what a complex system like a human being will do. Predestination just went down the tubes.
link
Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle lend support to free will.
link
Absolute knowledge of the forces accelerating a bullet should produce absolutely reliable predictions of its path, or so was thought. However, knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behavior....
As indicated above, QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory. Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says what the probabilities of various results are. So, for example, according to QM the fullest description possible of a radium atom (or a chunk of radium, for that matter), does not suffice to determine when a given atom will decay, nor how many atoms in the chunk will have decayed at any given time. The theory gives only the probabilities for a decay (or a number of decays) to happen within a given span of time. Einstein and others perhaps thought that this was a defect of the theory that should eventually be removed, by a supplemental hidden variable theory[6] that restores determinism; but subsequent work showed that no such hidden variables account could exist. At the microscopic level the world is ultimately mysterious and chancy.
link
The idea that the state of the universe at one time determines the state at all other times, has been a central tenet of science, ever since Laplace's time. It implies that we can predict the future, in principle at least. In practice, however, our ability to predict the future is severely limited by the complexity of the equations, and the fact that they often have a property called chaos. As those who have seen Jurassic Park will know, this means a tiny disturbance in one place, can cause a major change in another. A butterfly flapping its wings can cause rain in Central Park, New York. The trouble is, it is not repeatable. The next time the butterfly flaps its wings, a host of other things will be different, which will also influence the weather. That is why weather forecasts are so unreliable.
Despite these practical difficulties, scientific determinism, remained the official dogma throughout the 19th century. However, in the 20th century, there have been two developments that show that Laplace's vision, of a complete prediction of the future, can not be realised. The first of these developments was what is called, quantum mechanics....
It was some time before people realised the implications of this quantum behaviour for determinism. It was not until 1926, that Werner Heisenberg, another German physicist, pointed out that you couldn't measure both the position, and the speed, of a particle exactly. To see where a particle is, one has to shine light on it. But by Planck's work, one can't use an arbitrarily small amount of light. One has to use at least one quantum. This will disturb the particle, and change its speed in a way that can't be predicted.
This is summed up in the Uncertainty Principle that Heisenberg formulated; the uncertainty in the position of a particle, times the uncertainty in its speed, is always greater than a quantity called Planck's constant, divided by the mass of the particle.
Laplace's vision, of scientific determinism, involved knowing the positions and speeds of the particles in the universe, at one instant of time. So it was seriously undermined by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. How could one predict the future, when one could not measure accurately both the positions, and the speeds, of particles at the present time? No matter how powerful a computer you have, if you put lousy data in, you will get lousy predictions out.
Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.
Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.
Other scientists were much more ready than Einstein to modify the classical 19th century view of determinism. A new theory, called quantum mechanics, was put forward by Heisenberg, the Austrian, Erwin Schroedinger, and the British physicist, Paul Dirac. .... Although quantum mechanics has been around for nearly 70 years, it is still not generally understood or appreciated, even by those that use it to do calculations. Yet it should concern us all, because it is a completely different picture of the physical universe, and of reality itself. In quantum mechanics, particles don't have well defined positions and speeds. Instead, they are represented by what is called a wave function. This is a number at each point of space. The size of the wave function gives the probability that the particle will be found in that position. ... One can have a wave function that is very strongly peaked in a small region. This will mean that the uncertainty in the position is small. But the wave function will vary very rapidly near the peak, up on one side, and down on the other. Thus the uncertainty in the speed will be large. Similarly, one can have wave functions where the uncertainty in the speed is small, but the uncertainty in the position is large.
...
link
The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. So this is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.
link
Actually, we can prove God doesn't exist, the same way we do mathematical proofs. It just requires certain unprovable assumptions, just like math. The fact that these assumptions haven't been contradicted and are universally shared makes them more viable though.
Disproving specific Gods on the other hand is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
A clockwork universe is a deterministic universe where we can use the laws of physics to predict the future. A deterministic universe is one where where the future is entirely based off the past. It may or may not be able to be a clockwork universe.
Saying that we have souls is a bit of magic to get free will- however, souls, like magic are exempt from the laws of physics, NOT logic. Determinism or randomness is a matter of logic.
Supernatural things, if they existed, would be covered by natural laws. I'll give you an example- if a vampire existed or a troll or fairies or what not, what would be the difference aside from magic?
I know it says natural causes, but here is the thing- if the supernatural exists, than the laws of physics are wrong and have to be changed until they fit. Natural refers to everything in the universe in its broadest form.
Lets say you have a soul. It doesn't obliterate determinism. Your actions are still decided by the past- after all, I'm including God. His behavior is either random OR deterministic and your behavior is determined by your nature (includes soul) and your nurture.
The problem you don't get is that I take this seriously and think out the consequences. If the supernatural exists than the basic assumptions we have are wrong and we have to revise them. it is how science works.
Okay, let me put it better- most atheists had never heard of him. You may have, but atheists tend not to be interested in the nuances of theology.
You also ignore my constant question "than what is the alternative word". If you give it, I'll use it. The reason I reject agnostic is Huxley invented it in 1869 and the word atheist was used as far back as the ancient Greeks. So, what did they use to mean unbeliever between 2500 years ago and 140 years ago? After all, if you insist on using the "pure" definition you can't object to using the original.
Beliefs without evidence are beliefs in spite of evidence when they are theist belief. Why? Because if there was a God AND he cared, there would be evidence. The lack of evidence is an argument unto itself- theologians even have a name for it- theodocy. Trying to justify evil with an all powerful and all loving God. Not surprisingly, it doesn't work.
Believing in judgment and an afterlife is worse than just believing in an afterlife- you just admitted that you would do terrible things except you would be punished. That wasn't a strawman- I was giving you the benefit of doubt and not assuming you were a psychopath who was kept only in check by fear of punishment.
By culture in China I was referring to their written work. If the literate are all atheists, it will reflect their perspective.
You claimed the values that atheists hold was invented in Christianity- or that they were popularized by Christianity. It is hard to make out honestly, but both are wrong.
So the universe is finite- how does that refute determinism? Sure, many atheists believed in an infinite universe, but guess what? They were wrong. Science marches on.
I'm not saying the first cause equals God argument is correct- I'm showing that God is covered by determinism. It is an idea known as suspension of disbelief where you take an opponents idea seriously to show what its effects would be.
Supernatural, if it existed, would be covered by the same rules as natural things. The laws of physics would be wrong- the most basic assumption we make about the universe is it is self consistent.
"You mean when you insisted hunter gathers valued monogamy? Or when you insisted that "culture" couldn't include peasants? Or when you insisted Flew wasn't influential? Or when you insisted that astrophysics taught there was nothing outside our universe? Or insisted I had misunderstood Godel? Or above when you insist I have repeatedly called you an idiot?"
Hunter Gather groups like the Iroquois? Yes, not all of them valued monogamy, but many did... and your "Proof" was speculation based on statuettes from Europe!
I was referring to written work for culture. Being illiterate they don't really contribute to that. And given that it tends to be the only thing passed down, their oral culture isn't available.
You may think Flew was influential, but most atheists had to look him up to figure out who the heck theists were talking about. Influential people are those who have had a large effect on others- I don't believe the man has had any. Yes, I know, the definition, but this is getting circular!
Astrophysics doesn't teach there is nothing outside the universe- it simply doesn't deal with that. If I said something else I was either wrong or misspoke.
Godel's proof shows that no logical proof can not prove itself- it has to be based on something else. Probably misunderstood it, but that is the usage I have been using.
Just the tone.
I'm sorry, there are some negatives I can't prove. Most of them in fact- almost all. This is one of them. However, I'd like to point out there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever AND it contradicts everything we know about reality, so it probably is false.
As for souls, they have a bunch of logical problems- when do they join a person, where do they reside, etc. I leave such problems to theologians. However, if you insist-
When do souls enter the body (ensoulment)? There is no point when a person becomes human- the sperm and egg are already human, but a person only has one soul. Therefore the sperm and egg don't have souls. However, when does it enter? When they combine? Exactly what point and why is that special? How does it know how to do so then? What happens with spontaneous abortions? Where do souls come from? Why does God bother at all?
It isn't hard- you just have to take the concept seriously. For example, if souls enter when the sperm and the egg touch and join, that means a person dies whenever there is an abortion- spontaneous or man made. However, that defeats the whole point of putting a soul in the body- it fails to experience anything! But if souls are put in later, than it is essentially arbitrary. And souls have to be put in the brain- you can remove all other parts of the body and eliminate person hood (unless souls aren't related to self, so why bother? But you can take apart person hood by destroying the brain- so the soul has to use the brain as a physical conduit. But if it does that then we should see it- after all, it has contact with reality- but we don't see that.
You take on faith machines have no souls. As I have repeatedly said, I have no faith... of course you have accused me of having more faith than you do.
Of course since you consider faith to be a good thing, I'll take it as a misguided compliment.
I believe machines have no souls because souls don't exist. What is next? Do I have to prove Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy- or better yet, Father Time don't exist?
There is no proof that any of them do, just like souls. And just like souls they contradict what we know about reality. Way to shift the burden of proof. You have to prove that souls exist- but you don't. You take it on faith and accuse me of faith when I say they don't. Sneaky.
Your justification is entirely by faith for morality?
That is insane! You have denied yourself the right to judge others or criticize their actions- how can you claim your faith is better than others faith? This is madness!
I have repeatedly provided evidence for my beliefs. The reason you do not see reason is because the internet is a poor medium (if we were talking, fixing the gaps would be easy) and the inability to go from point a to b without me having to explain the entire thing.
For example, determinism which you insist only covers natural laws. Well, if supernatural things existed they also be considered natural, now wouldn't they? But you couldn't figure that out yourself!
I also thought you were attacking my morality as inconsistent- but it is much more constant than yours. I could kill and you'd have no grounds for objecting- after all, one man's faith is as good as another. Face it- faith for morality is the stupidest idea you have yet posted.
Well, the reason that it was a pseudoscience is that they blatantly forged the research and ignored outside variables (poverty). Global warming doesn't have those problems.
The Church stopped Eugenics Laws? Hey- good news! Except, I'm pretty sure that all the Western democracies carried out programs. They might have convinced the dictatorships and Franco not to. Still, good news.
Uh, the church was. You do realize that most of the German population was Catholic? And the Pope had to opportunities to speak out and change things? And that they handed over ancestry information?
Naturalism isn't required for eugenics- for example TR was a Christian and a eugenicist. The requirement is a belief that nature is the main factor determining human potential and... that is it really. This works perfectly well with "free will" ideas- serfdom is based of this after all.
Good intentions and knowledge. Is that better.
I'm honest. Why? You think that treating other people as machines is a bad thing- but I'm a machine too. It falls under reciprocal behavior.
Seriously you seem to think it is bad, but you don't say why.
You think Asperger's Syndrome is a cognitive defect? I think it is an advantage (I have it)- sure there are some problems, but on the whole their are benefits- insensitivity to pain and temperature, sensitivity to sound, the ability to think logically, the ability to be imaginative, critical thinking skills (they come real easily) and, of course, the obsessive drive for knowledge.
Sure, normal people have some of those things, but they are MUCH more prone to cognitive dissidence and rationalization.
I didn't say society would stop people from treating people as machines- after all, I do it. Society prevents people from treating each other inhumanly by providing even more inhuman options to deal with other people... okay, I'm just being cynical. There is, however a difference between treating people as machines and treating the badly.
That is correct. My treating other people like machines is due to naturalism. Come to think of it, my atheism is also due to naturalism.
Intrinsic value mean their is a value assigned to something merely by belonging to a certain category. Since "human" also includes my skin cells, being human has no inherent value.
I also find it funny because you criticize me... after stating that your beliefs are based on faith. Well, MY faith is better than your! (I'm being sarcastic)
Why don't we kill people who can't contribute anymore? Because they did so in the past (some of those eliminated lost limbs in the Great War)? Because it is used as an excuse to go after the equivalent of welfare mothers distracting form the governments actual problems? Because it is wrong to snuff other intelligences out of existence?
I hold minds in high esteem- which means I would be okay with killing brain dead individuals with no chance of recovery. And abortion.
You are blaming their actions on their atheism because you claim that atheism has no morality... while at the same time stating that you can only defend morality on faith. Do I need to go into exactly HOW wrong you are or do you think that by now you can grasp the point?
How the heck are atheism and economic policy connected? Economics is a science and as such is available to everyone.
As for an atheist leader- who is in charge of China. Sure, they are a despot- but the countries growth rate is in double digits AND they are communist! China is weird that way- they have capitalism... but the companies are state owned so they are communists... and they are dumping the social programs... I'll put them down in the "evil" column.
First of, saying the I word is not swearing- if you think that is swearing than you should watch Yugiho the abridged series- it is on you tube. They have an excellent example of what real swearing is- episode twenty something.
Most of the human race has been marked by a lack of compassion towards outsiders. At the same time, most of human existence was not an endless mire of pit and despair- look at your own life. How many truly awful things happen? Now consider that the future will make it look bad.
So, yes the past sucked, but things weren't CONSTANTLY bad.
Look at an African country today like Burkina Faso. Dirt poor- second poorest in Africa. Do you think their lives are unmitigated hardship, pain and suffering? No, they aren't.
My point, which... come to think of it you haven't gotten a single one of my points. Let me check.
Nope. The strangers in the computer lab agree- the problem is at YOUR end.
You stated that the reason that you didn't kill people because you would be judged. Or, in other words, not moral behavior, but intelligent self interest and long term benefit. So the reason that belief in an afterlife doesn't lead to murder is it also has belief in punishment... except, those are two separate beliefs and the first doesn't require the second.
So what? Moral behavior is behavior undertaken because it is the right thing, not the selfish thing. Doing something selfish that benefits others isn't morality.
I have repeatedly stated I treat people as machines and you need more evidence? The problem for you is that I don't treat people poorly- sure they are machines and sure they are insignificant, but so am I. In fact, those facts are irrelevant to how I treat them, a distinction that completely escapes you.
Proving the supernatural doesn't exist is proving a negative. Of course, if it existed, it would be natural, not supernatural things, but I can't prove that there aren't things that violate scientific laws- even though scientific laws have been tested for hundreds of years and found to have no exceptions. All I have is a mountain of evidence, but no proof. I guess I'll have to content myself with that.
You accuse me off flip flopping somewhere around where you say that "society keeps me in line". Now, I'll be honest- there are somethings that society prevents me from doing- like driving 150 down the highway or constructing a death ray in my back yard (It is for peaceful purposes! I swear!). However, there I things I would do even if they were legal or society broke down- rape, murder, kidnapping, theft, etc. Simply put, I treat people as machines and I treat them decently.
You, on the other hand believe that without the belief in a judgment that it would be justified to go on a killing spree.
Secular nations have lower crime rates. The murder rate dropped in Europe over the last several centuries.
Uncertainty is a knowledge problem. Just because we can't predict it doesn't mean there is a casual connection. Which would be determinism.
The third point implies randomness. It is possible the universe is random, not deterministic. Of course, neither of the two is free will.
Oh crap. Well, it is nice to have the knowledge... and gives the worst mental image since learning about dust mites and bacteria.
Okay, I thought you were talking about vacuum fluctuations. Of course, this is randomness... however, if it occurs often enough it smooths out and leads to determinism. And, of course it doesn't have any impact on people's actions- sub atomic level is too small to effect neurons.
However, randomness as opposed to determinism isn't a problem for me. I'm fine with either.
Godel's theorem doesn't apply to this subject.
Chaos theory is that small deviations affect the result, which does effect this... except the deviations are subatomic.
So, either the universe is deterministic or it is random. In neither case is it free willed. However, I think the evidence points more to determinism- sure we have constant fluctuations, which would mean the universe is random... except that they could be governed by rules (I don't know), follow patterns, or be too negligible to matter.
It is worth noting that, even if they do have an effect, everything else is deterministic. Determinism is when everything is deterministic. Randomness is when somethings are random.
Neither of these is free will based. In fact your own belief, is deterministic- that these events are caused by God.
I'll respond to Ryan later- the posts are getting longer and longer.
Note- two things
First, I forgot to put in some good logical errors for souls. For example, if they are tied to the brain, do they grow in size as the brain does? Do twins share souls given how similar their personality is? Is a soul a blob? Is it differentiatied? I could go on, but I am sure you can find ones on your own. It actually is fun!
As for my remarks on determinism...
Supernatural things can't exist. Why? Because they are, by definition, things that break natural laws. Natural laws are rules that are never broken. So what happens when something does break a natural law? Simple- the law is wrong and the thing is counted on natural.
I'd go on, but I want to see how you misconstrue this- I have money ridding on the results. I, personally am going with "ignore what I said and strawman", but my friend is going with "the magic handwave".
A deterministic universe is one where where the future is entirely based off the past.
It may or may not be able to be a clockwork universe.
Could you give an example of a deterministic universe which is not a clockwork universe please?
Outside of a clockwork universe being deist, typically, this explanation doesn't seem to differentiate them any better.
Saying that we have souls is a bit of magic to get free will
Perhaps it is a concept used as a basis for human rights other than, for instance, "complexity" or "convention" which
both have problems of their own?
Determinism or randomness is a matter of logic.
Exactly. Your beliefs on this topic are not a matter of evidence, but of first assumptions. A naturalistic view
of the material world doesn't have to conflict with free will, for that matter. But an atheistic view does.
To give an example of why evidence is important, I can derive a system of logic that describes a
Newtonian world and insist that a triangle with more than 360 degrees in a euclidian
system is "illogical." Sure. But the universe leads to the counter-intuitive evidence that you can
have such a triangle in a non-euclidian system, and that space IS, in fact, non-euclidian. So we need
both logic and evidence because sometimes the world follows rules we don't expect.
Supernatural things, if they existed, would be covered by natural laws.
I'm inclined to agree. My point is that there are not any natural laws which disprove free will.
Your assumptions, not positive scientific evidence, are the things opposed to free will.
You assume that a non-deterministic pattern has to be random. Perhaps there is a chance (somewhere between 0 and 99%)
that it is not actually random. Estimating the probability that this is true is a different discussion.
if the supernatural exists, than the laws of physics are wrong and have to be changed until they fit
Not nessicarily. It's possible for the supernatural to exist within the laws of physics, as a non-random
pattern where randomness was expected.
To give an example that I don't believe is likely to happen; If I drop some sand on the floor and it spells out
"hello Ryan" it may be that that event is highly improbable but still not impossible under the laws of physics.
But it makes no sense to ask whether this is true or until we acknowledge that it is a possible theory (whether we agree
with it or not.)
Beliefs without evidence are beliefs in spite of evidence when they are theist belief.
Why? Because if there was a God AND he cared, there would be evidence.
I understand what you're saying here. But as I've already said; The Judeo-Christian paradigm
does not hold that God is trying to prove his existance to as many people as possible. Quite the
contrary. Religion is expressed as something of an affinity test.
You claimed the values that atheists hold was invented in Christianity- or that they were popularized by Christianity. It is hard to make out honestly, but both are wrong.
The second was the one claimed, but only for Western atheists. Also, people seem to have some level
of innate moral sense, but it's a little warped. Well, you've made an assertion here. Any evidence
to back it up? You started out by saying that your views were based on evidence, that you had an interest in history,
etc. If that's true, I don't see why you're not more enthusiastic to substantiate your views. I mean, if you're
right I'd love to be educated. But I hope you can understand that it takes more than just your say-so.
So the universe is finite- how does that refute determinism?
The comment was in regards to the probability of life, IIRC. My point was that there were a much smaller number of
"20d" dice throws than most people seem to believe, and that forming life involves many more hurdles than they
tend to anticipate. This is not a proof of anything, of course. But it does suggest that the people making the
calculations about the probability of life are not as far along as some seem to believe.
Hunter Gather groups like the Iroquois? Yes, not all of them valued monogamy, but many did... and your "Proof" was speculation based on statuettes from Europe!
What is your proof? You don't seem to be giving any counter-evidence at all, outside of simple assertion.
You may think Flew was influential, but most atheists had to look him up to figure out who the heck theists were talking about.
Tim's point was that you and many others use Flew's defiition, therefore Flew had an influence. If you disagree,
show someone using 'his' definition before Tim said Flew redefined atheist. Otherwise, agree that Flew
had an influence, even if you didn't know who he was. Why is that so strange?
Astrophysics doesn't teach there is nothing outside the universe- it simply doesn't deal with that. If I said something else I was either wrong or misspoke.
Great. We're agreed there then.
but a person only has one soul.
Kabbalistic Judiasm disagrees, but that's a whole other discussion. Why not look at souls as
a concept that, in part, allows for modeling human interaction. Saying "animals have souls" is, in part,
asserting that they feel pain and that the pain is morally significant, etc. I'm sure you can find answers
to your questions about souls, but I haven't wandered into that esoteria. I don't have any good test
for assertions about souls. But so far I haven't needed one.
However, that defeats the whole point of putting a soul in the body- it fails to experience anything!
Well, true or false, that's an assumption; "the purpose of life is experience." It's one which Tim has explicitly
denied. For my own part, i don't know the purpose of life. Religion is more concerned with what we're supposed to do.
But if it does that then we should see it- after all, it has contact with reality- but we don't see that.
This is kindof like saying "we can't see consciousness" or "we can't see sentience."
Sure. But the concepts still refer to something.
Of course since you consider faith to be a good thing, I'll take it as a misguided compliment.
It isn't always good to have faith. It depends on what you have faith in.
When we believe in things we can't prove, the Christian view seems to be that we should 'test'
those beliefs "an appeal to consequences." It is based on the notion that a good belief is more likely to
yeild good results. If we're talking about something that can't be demonstrated by material evidence,
this seems a good standard.
I have repeatedly provided evidence for my beliefs. The reason you do not see reason is because the internet is a poor medium
hm?
Well, if supernatural things existed they also be considered natural, now wouldn't they? But you couldn't figure that out yourself!
You can call God "natural" if you like. But since theists think he existed before the universe and has attributes outside of the universe and
those attributes aren't subject to, say, entropy then the word 'natural' might confuse things.
Face it- faith for morality is the stupidest idea you have yet posted.
All morality is based on either faith or the assertion that a person's actions don't acheive the intended results.
How do you prove that murder is wrong? Saying that you don't want people to murder you isn't proof (in the academic sense.)
If you believe it but you cannot prove it (in the academic sense) then you take it on faith.
I'm not a cultural relativist. At the same time, I acknowledge I can't indisputably prove that I'm correct.
Well, the reason that it was a pseudoscience is that they blatantly forged the research and ignored outside variables (poverty). Global warming doesn't have those problems.
What is this in reference to?
Good intentions and knowledge. Is that better.
The problem is, human knowledge is always very far from perfect.
The eugenecists thought that their knowledge was good, I'm sure.
We may as well just have one law; "Don't do bad things."
You are blaming their actions on their atheism because you claim that atheism has no morality... while at the same time stating that you can only defend morality on faith.
I think the point here is that certain beliefs tend to lead to or be associated with certain moral views.
Even atheism is associated with certain moral views. Because atheism tends to lead to certain views, it can fairly be associated with them.
Thus, the statement that "atheism teaches nothing" is not entirely true. It's not a truly blank slate because
it tends to lead people to certain types of conclusions.
AND they are communist! China is weird that way- they have capitalism... but the companies are state owned so they are communists
China is in the process of privatizing. I'm not sure I'd fairly call it communist now.
You stated that the reason that you didn't kill people because you would be judged.
Or, in other words, not moral behavior, but intelligent self interest and long term benefit.
So the reason that belief in an afterlife doesn't lead to murder is it also has belief in punishment...
except, those are two separate beliefs and the first doesn't require the second.
Tim has already said that he cares primarily about outcomes. He wants people to act morally. Whether they think they're acting
in their self interest or against their self interest is not important to him. What's wrong with acting in my self interest
if it helps others? It seems a needless distinction. The problems only come when a person believes that certain moral rules are
against his self interest, and violates them. But as long as someone is moral, who cares why?
You, on the other hand believe that without the belief in a judgment that it would be justified to go on a killing spree
I don't know that he said that it would be "justified." But if people didn't think there were consequenes
to their actions, there are things they would do that they don't do now. I'm not talking about truth here,
but about the behavioral outcomes that certain belief systems produce when practiced by the whole population. Including
people of various personality types.
Uncertainty is a knowledge problem. Just because we can't predict it doesn't mean there is a casual connection. Which would be determinism.
The problem (if I parse what you're saying correctly) is that Quantum Physics isn't simply about 'uncertainty.'
I know that it's called "the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle," but that's a misnomer. But it's about small bits of matter entering into states
that defy our everyday Newtonain understanding of things. Particles get 'smeared out' into clouds where they seem
to exist everywhere they could exist, to the degree that they could exist there. If there were some kind of supernatural order in this
probability cloud, there could be some other outcome other than simply "randomness" or "determinism" without violating any
laws of physics.
however, if it occurs often enough it smooths out and leads to determinism.
In the sense that our actions are determined entirely by physical causes, I can't prove if this is true or not.
In the sense that one moment is determined entirely by the material states of the previous moment,
that doesn't seem to be the true.
The point of the butterfly effect is to show that small perterbations, even those on the atomic level,
don't 'smooth out' but can instead have ever-growing impacts on future events.
Chaos theory is that small deviations affect the result, which does effect this... except the deviations are subatomic.
Sure, quantum deviations are on the atomic level (Helium atoms can exibit quantum effects.) But those
deviations don't stay on the atomic level. This is why the perterbations are not "too negligible to matter."
Small changes have big outcomes.
If by 'follow patterns' you're referring to attractors, sure.
But that won't take care of all the chaos in a system.
Sam - I just want to say, I agree with you 99.95% about people being psychologically deterministic machines.
Most people, myself included spend a good portion of their lives operating off of training and instinct of various kinds. Not only can I often not stay awake if I want to or concentrate if I want to or remember what I want to, but it can even be difficult to put certain thoughts out of my head or control my emotions. I'm sure that a great deal of my actions are simply intellectualized instinct that I rationalize after the fact. Saying that humans have free will is like saying we can steer a freight train.
I do think that there may be some effect other than simply 'randomness' or 'determinism' (or even 'psychological determinism' where people's actions are determined by their immediately previous states.) I honestly believe it is possible, and can show why it isn't contrary to any known laws of physics. I try not to overestimate its effect. But often I'm delusional, and trick myself into thinking I decide far far more about my life than I really do.
I'll respond soon Ryan- I'm sorry, I've been busy. I just want to add something.
When I say I deal with people as machines it DOESN'T mean I treat them like things (which is the definition of psychopayh- could be why you acted funny). There is a differance. I recognize that they are as deterministic as robots. Admitedly ones that have enough processing power to replicate the human brain- you know, Asimov style.
They are nothing more than the sum of their parts. And unlike pschopaths, I know I am also nothing more than the sum of my parts.
Don't worry Ryan- I'll respond asap.
Actually, we can prove God doesn't exist, the same way we do mathematical proofs. It just requires certain unprovable assumptions, just like math.
Yes, as Ryan pointed out above, all "proofs" rest upon that, including theistic ones. The question then is only one of consistency, and how well the assumptions seem to reflect reality.
Saying that we have souls is a bit of magic to get free will- however, souls, like magic are exempt from the laws of physics, NOT logic.
Any time you'd like to employ some logic toward that end, you're more than welcomed to.
Supernatural things, if they existed, would be covered by natural laws. I'll give you an example- if a vampire existed or a troll or fairies or what not, what would be the difference aside from magic?
What do you mean "aside from" magic? The "magic" would be precisely what would make such entities supernatural. A "vampire" who is merely a human being who likes blood and prefers the night shift isn't a "supernatural" being. A vampire's other alleged attributes: shape-changing, invisibility, eternal life, etc. -- as far as we know aren't possible under natural laws. Hence, if such existed, they would "supernatural" powers.
I disagree with your statement and Ryan's response: Supernatural means above natural. Things or abilities which are "supernatural" are generally those assumed to violate natural laws (or at least normal expectations of probability).
When think you have a clever argument which allows you to convince yourself that anything "above-natural" (supernatural) is actually NOT above natural law -- that should be a hint something is going wrong. Maybe it is that certain things called supernatural could be real, but allowed by laws we don't know about. Or it could be that they simply don't exist. But you can't simply change reality or other people's arguments simply by offering unusual, private definitions at each turn, Samuel.
Flew: Okay, let me put it better- most atheists had never heard of him.
Again, you're quite wrong. How do you think his arguments became so influential? Prominent atheists read his arguments and repeated them -- and they eventually trickled down to you. That how you ended up echoing his opinions and teachings, Samuel.
And that's quite why atheists are reacting by saying "he's lost his mind" rather than "Flew? Flew who?" If what you're saying is true, you should be able to find a prominent older atheist, who was around and an atheist at the time, who says: "Why, Flew had no fame or influence at all. We never heard of him." If you can't produce such an atheist (and quote) it implies you're simply (again) saying what you wish were true, based on no evidence at all.
You also ignore my constant question "than what is the alternative word".
Samuel: Anyone else can see I've already answered your question time and time again. Read above, please. Simply insisting the opposite doesn't make that simple fact go away.
Samuel: So, what did they use to mean unbeliever between 2500 years ago and 140 years ago?
Tim: Tim (on other thread): ... "infidel", "unbeliever", "doubter", certain shades of "heathen", etc -- if you need single-word terms. And of course, the easiest one-word term for nonbeliever is... (drum roll) "nonbeliever." (Doh!) But there's no reason to think an idea must be conveyed in only one word. Plenty of ideas fail to have a single word which sums them up in any particular language.
Okay, there's your answer. AGAIN. Please read it. This is your final warning. You don't have to agree with it -- you could even produce evidence that it's wrong. But I do not tolerate people saying: "Oh! You've never given answer to this!" (or acting in the same manner) when I have. It's rude, dishonest, and shows me that speaking with you a waste of time. (Why give counter-evidence? You'll just pretend not to hear it.)
Please read the comment rules, you been warned repeatedly. There will not be another warning.
Beliefs without evidence are beliefs in spite of evidence when they are theist belief. Why? Because if there was a God AND he cared, there would be evidence.
Actually, there IS a ton of evidence. So much that atheists now have to propose multiple universe as a way of getting around it.
This is why I'm finding this conversation so ironic: You've insisted we should only believe on the basis of evidence. You've offered none for yours, and now are trying to insist mine have none. But mine ARE based on evidence. (You may not like it, or draw the same conclusion, but that's another matter.) So there the irony: the evidence-based atheist can offer none for his beliefs, and his "idiot" religious opponent apparently has much more.
The lack of evidence is an argument unto itself- theologians even have a name for it- theodocy. Trying to justify evil...
Again, you're wrong. "Theodicy" (note spelling, please) is not at all about a "lack of evidence." It's about evil -- as you contradict yourself by then admitting. (Do you even notice it when two of your sentences, right next to each other, completely contradict?)
Atheists seem to believe that if God were truly good, we would have no moral free will. In other words, apparently atheists' highest view of goodness means the elimination of moral choice, lest people choose to do evil. In contrast, theists believe choice is necessary for goodness, and that evil is a necessary side-effect of allowing any moral choice at all.
So atheists and theists usually differ here because they have different values. When an atheist offers this argument, he is testifying that his best idea of "goodness", apparently, is what a theist might call "totalitarianism": that the highest goodness is the elimination of free will or moral choice. I can't agree with that argument, because I'm not persuaded an existence where no moral choices were allowed would be the ideal.
Believing in judgment and an afterlife is worse than just believing in an afterlife- you just admitted that you would do terrible things except you would be punished
Again, you're simply lying here Samuel. Read my quote again:
Samuel: So you only act good because you will be punished.
Tim: Another straw man argument? There are lots of reasons to act good: I've never said theists act good only because they'll be punished. I simply answered your contention that an afterlife would allow people to kill with impunity.
Okay? When I say that theists don't only act good ONLY because they'll be punished, and then you respond by insisting: "you just admitted that you would do terrible things except you would be punished", that is what's called a falsehood.
It's as if I said: "I like other things than ice cream" and you say: "You just admitted you like nothing other than ice cream." Samuel, whether you're being deliberately dishonest, or simply have colossal reading-comprehension difficulties the result is the same: There's really no point in speaking with someone who will pretend, each time you said the exact opposite of what you actually just wrote. Again, final warning.
Theists act good for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes its because it produces a good feeling. Sometimes, because we don't want to get in trouble, or because they expect a reward -- here or later. And sometimes because we're just stupid and hoping (as I'm doing with you, now) that if we take someone seriously -- even somehow who insults us and lies about us at each turn -- they might just benefit a bit and snap out of it.
You claimed the values that atheists hold was invented in Christianity- or that they were popularized by Christianity. It is hard to make out honestly, but both are wrong.
No, I never said "invented". I said "originated" and explained it this way:
"I'm not saying nobody else could have ever embraced or though of them also (though that's true also in some cases), but simply that the primary source of these values, for the average Western atheist, is from Christianity or Judaism."
I'm sorry if that's somehow difficult for you to understand.
So the universe is finite- how does that refute determinism? Sure, many atheists believed in an infinite universe, but guess what? They were wrong. Science marches on.
Context, my absent-minded friend. You had said the determinism necessitated a first cause, thus allowing you (as you seem to need to do every couple of minutes) allowing you to redefine determinism as something rather than excluding supernatural influences, as allowing for them.
Hence, I pointed out that wasn't at all allowed under "determinism", by those who advocated the belief.
I'm not saying the first cause equals God argument is correct- I'm showing that God is covered by determinism.
Right, and I quoted those who advocated determinism to show that a "first cause" was one of things they felt determinism excludes.
It would be nice if you would answer that rebuttal, rather than simply repeating your belief again, okay?
Supernatural, if it existed, would be covered by the same rules as natural things.
Samuel, I'm sorry, but it simply does not. Hence the meaning of "super-natural" as "above-natural" -- i.e. not subject to natural laws. Again, try to understand that we have different words to mean different things. No amount of repeating yourself causes "supernatural" to mean "something which must be subject to the laws of nature."
You're living in a fantasy world here, Samuel.
"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature"
Why is that so hard for you?
The laws of physics would be wrong- the most basic assumption we make about the universe is it is self consistent.
No, it wouldn't mean the laws of physics (as we know them) were wrong, just that they were incomplete. At one time, we thought Newton's laws were inviolable, but then we discovered that they themselves were subject to a set of "higher" laws -- those described by relativity.
Likewise, if there is some kind of "super-natural", it wouldn't mean our laws of physics were wrong, just that they were still incomplete, or that something above them, or outside our normal experience, could modify or appear to act contrary to them.
Hunter Gather groups like the Iroquois? Yes, not all of them valued monogamy, but many did... and your "Proof" was speculation based on statuettes from Europe!
Sorry, but the Iroquois did not share the Christian value of monogamy:
Among the Iroquois, who were barbarians of high mental grade, and among the usually advanced Indian tribes generally, chastity had come to be required of the wife under sever penalties which the husband might inflict; but he did not admit the reciprocal obligation.... polygamy was universally recognized as the right of the males. [source]
What "proof" and "statuettes" are you speaking of?
Your statement was that hunter-gatherer groups valued monogamy (apparently meaning as Christians understand it) for "195000 years". I'm just not seeing that you've produced any sound evidence for that yet. I'm sorry.
(And, humorously, it's a non-sequitur anyway, since, as repeated above, my point is only that a Western Atheist has adopted many if not most of their values from Christianity -- whether or not some far-away group might also have had them.)
Perhaps the difficulty you're having in showing evidence for your belief on this point might be a sign that perhaps the correct answer lies in the other direction?
Godel's proof shows that no logical proof can not prove itself- it has to be based on something else. Probably misunderstood it, but that is the usage I have been using.
Yes. And by doing so, you keep making the same mistake over and over. Previously, you said:
You said: "Godels theorm is completely irrelevant in this case. He says that you can't have a system that justifies itself."
I responded with a citation here (search for Godel), which shows you're misunderstand Godel. PLEASE read it. Even if you don't understand it, please show SOME comprehension that a response has been given.
To repeat, one last time: Incompleteness is not the same thing as "self-justifying" or "self-proving". NO logical argument is self-proving, all rest on axioms. (We knew that long before Godel.) Instead, Godel showed that things could be actually true, but not PROVABLY true, or false, but not provably false. (This was in response to your assertive declaration that the only true things were those which had been proven true. That idea is provably false.)
However, I'd like to point out there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever AND it contradicts everything we know about reality, so it probably is false.
First, there's plenty of evidence, and I've given you some already. (In contrast, you've offered no evidence for your assertion that nothing supernatural exists! So if a lack of evidence is a bad thing -- as you keep insisting -- you should apply that rule to your own beliefs, Samuel.)
Second, it doesn't contradict anything we know about reality. If you think it does, then supply an example. (Of course, you wont: you apparently have almost no evidence for your beliefs. You just state your wishes as facts. You apparently only "believe things because you believe them", ironically.)
To the contrary, much of what atheists have said and still say contradicts what we know about reality. Above, I point out that though atheists predicted a deterministic universe, science now shows us determinism is dead. (Some still believe otherwise.) Atheists say we can't believe things without evidence -- and then can't offer evidence for their beliefs! Atheists insisted the universe must (because of their beliefs) be infinitely old -- it was not. Atheists predicted as we learned more about the universe, it would show there was nothing interesting, improbable or unique about it. Instead, we have learned that it appears oddly, improbably configured to bring us into being. Atheists predicted we'd soon figure out how life arose. Instead, we find the odds of it happening by chance were so small as to seem to preclude it's existence.
The belief we have transcendent meaning, and that morals are more than subjective is something atheists demonstrate they believe -- sometimes with words, and more often with their actions. But their stated beliefs are in utter contradiction to that reality. (See Dawkins' admission above.)
I'm sorry but as far as I can see, it seems that most atheists have far more problems with consistency and reality than most theists do.
As for souls, they have a bunch of logical problems- when do they join a person, where do they reside, etc.
Those aren't logical problems: they're unknowns. There's a large difference. If unknowns are "logical problems" then cosmologists have a "logical problem" with their theories of the big bang -- they don't understand what brought the initial conditions about, or inflation, etc.
So also, the rest of physics must be riddled with "logical problems" too -- because physicists don't understand the origins of quantum events, what a "quark" really is, the origins of the strong and weak forces, how action at a distance occurs.
If your usage were correct, these are all "logical problems." Is your usage correct? I think not.
Why does God bother at all?
Because God is love, and love, by its nature, needs an object. That means you, Samuel.
It isn't hard- you just have to take the concept seriously.
I do, actually. That's why I've apparently thought more about this than you have.
that means a person dies whenever there is an abortion- spontaneous or man made. However, that defeats the whole point of putting a soul in the body- it fails to experience anything!
Well, this is where science and your views seem to collide a bit. The old (secular) view was that a fetus was just "a lump of tissue". But as we've learned more, we see fetuses, at a young age, appearing to have many of the same facilities an infant would have: reactions to their environment, playfulness, yawning, sleeping, etc. It appears the fetus is indeed having experiences.
But if souls are put in later, than it is essentially arbitrary.
Why? It's "arbitrary" that we let kids drive at 16, or drink at 21, but that observation doesn't therefore prove that people never get to drive or consume alcohol legally!
I don't see why it's a problem to think the divine might only put souls into bodies when those bodies are able to have some minimal level of perception. Why would an intelligence be incapable of drawing such an inference?
There a lot of questions one could pose about souls -- or any other metaphysical topics (why does anything exist at all? why does "logic" seem to work? What produced the universe? How will it end? How does action at a distance work?). The existence of questions or untied loose ends doesn't show whether something is true or false.
It seems to me (and many atheistic scientists, apparently) that the configuration of the universe around us implies a creator. I've also seen things I can't easily discount -- things which would seem impossible by natural laws -- and one's model of the universe must take account of, and reflect, one's experience of reality. Belief in a God seems to match up well with this evidence.
Given a sentient creator, souls would be a reasonable implication, perhaps even a necessary one. What is the soul? It is a special supernatural something, with some part of it outside this spacetime continuum or set of dimensions? Is it just the sum total of our mental configuration, which the creator will transmit into another medium at some point?
As with most areas of inquiry, I don't claim to know all the answers. Again, I don't worry too much about "souls" -- it's just an outgrowth of admitting perhaps there's a meaning behind this place. But there does appear to be some interesting evidence for the idea.
For example, studies of the topic of Near-Death Experiences turn up blind people who were able to describe what was going on around them at while they were "dead". I don't understand how the laws of physics would enable this, personally.
Nor do I understand how such "memories" could be recorded and recounted if "the mind is the brain", and the brain was not working at all -- much less functioning at the high level normally associated with the transference of experience to short-term memory, of short-term memory into medium-term, and medium-term into long-term storage. Even a bump on the head interrupts that -- how could it happen with a flat EEG?
For example:
From these studies we know that in our prospective study1 as well as in the other studies2,3 of patients who have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG), total lack of electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been the only possibility, but also the abolition of brain-stem activity, such as the loss of the corneal reflex, fixed and dilated pupils, and the loss of the gag reflex, is a clinical finding in those patients. However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their “dead” body. Because of the occasional and verifiable out-of-body experiences, like the one involving the dentures in our study,1 we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last seconds of this period. There is also a well documented report of a patient with constant registration of the EEG during surgery for an gigantic aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees Celsius. She was connected to a heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified....
How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death, with a flat EEG? Such a brain would be roughly analogous to a computer with its power source unplugged and its circuits detached.
Some people start with their ideas and preferences, and then reason backwards to how they want the universe to be. Then they confuse that result with reality. I personally try to look at all the available evidence, and then form theories which encompass that evidence. I don't say: "Well, that can't be so" simply because something doesn't match my preferences.
An atheist must believe not just some (we all agree some are) but ALL reports of miracles or any evidence of the supernatural is fraudulent or mistaken. I've seen too much to allow me to come to that conclusion. So I have to be honest about what I've seen. Others may draw other conclusions: I respect that, and it doesn't bother me. But it makes me sad to see atheists, like Sam Harris, talking about the need to kill people who don't agree with his views.
I'm going to answer Rayn first- thanks for your patience.
First, determinism vs randomness vs free will. There are two forms- the universe and human beings. We seperate these because free will isn't considered a trait of inaminate objects.
First, the universe
Now, determinism is based off of physical laws, which are supposed to always hold true. The idea is that given a certain set of circumstances, you will always get the same result. A deterministic universe is one where this is true and a clockwork universe is one where this is true in practice (using supercomputer's probably).
Now, determinism is the default because you can't prove it, only disprove it. And it looks like they may or may not have disproved it. It depends on wheter or not the randomness you noted is truely random and has an effect. Hey, I'm open to that. Personally, it is rather irrelevant to me- and ironic that while Tim claims to reject determinism his finishing lines support it. Or, to be honest, you could be right about the universe is random. Congradulations!
I should mention that if you don't like me covering supernatural in determinism, I'll use the term supernatural determinism. It is normal determinism, but with supernatural covered too.
Now we get to people. There are three options- free will, randomness and determinism.
Determinism-every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences
Randomness-random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution
Free will... well, I used wiki and it said "rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions". Well... duh- it is just casually determined.
I'll be honest- I can't wrap my head around how free will is supposed to work or how randomness supports it. I believe it is supposed to be we choose are actions and they aren't determined by our upbringings or backround, but the problem with that is it relies on having souls... except souls don't solve it. Because than the souls determine our actions- worse yet, God does because he chooses our souls.
You're the one making a claim. You have to prove it. I have pointed out repeatedly that agnosticism was invented by Huxley, so the term "weak atheism", or people who don't believe in God, was covered by atheism until 1869. Unless you can give me a previous version than atheism origionally covered it. Hey- this is what happens when you insist on origional usage.
The fun part is that this is completely unrelated to wheter atheism is an ideology or atheism is valid. After all, most Americans believe the constitution was the founding document of the United States, but there is no conspiracy or ideology responsible- it is simply ignorance. The consitution is from 1787 while the Articles of Confederation are from 1777.
Vox Day is this man
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
It used to be I thought he was the most insane use of divine command theory. Boy was I wrong! Experience cured me when I found this guy.
http://www.berith.org/essays/martin_rape/
Unlike Vox, I didn't read the responce- just the title: "The ethic of rape".
On future eugenics... we could simply use genetic engineering. Still creepy, but with 100% less killing.
Well, if I was brought up in an evil society I'd probably be evil- or dead. What? If you look at history, that is how it works for the majority of the population.
The differance is now we can question what society considers moral. We can tell others they are wrong and declare society isn't living up to its own standards. That is how the civil rights movement worked.
Does atheism prevent a communist take over? Well, we have had several indepedant communist revolutions (ignoring the Red Armies liberation march). Yemen, China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba... that is it. We have one Muslim, two Christian and three Buddist. Is Buddism atheistic? In theory it is supposed to be, but in practice... Anyway, the commanality between the countries is... previous rule. None of the countries have democracy or a history of elections. Cambodia is the closest to an exception- but it only had 15 years of democracy.
How well are atheists when they organized for political purposes? Herding cats is the popular analogy
I was calling Tim an idiot, not you Ryan. You aren't condesending. It is the way you speak. Sure you do the "I'm right and you are wrong", but you do it in the "If you can prove that I am wrong I'd be interested" way.
I maintain my definition of faith. If you look at it it has two definitions that are simply "belief in x". When faith is belief where evidence doesn't matter, than it is in spite of belief- you don't need faith to believe things supported by evidence (as Tim and you have ACTUALLY displayed- using faith to justify things that you can't think of anything in opposition to me).
I put up the phrase after hearing that about 20% of people who listed themselves as atheists believed in God (Pew survey). And the fact that 20% of the population believe the president is doing a great job, the country is on the right track... I guess most people is an exageration. Not to bash my own country too much in Australia the problem is even more severe with many people exibiting "head in the ground behavior". And lets not go into Europe and their problems.
The fact that direct democracy doesn't work past a certain size didn't effect mobile hunter gather tribes- they rarely exceeded 50 people.
True. Democracy is more complicated. It sort of evolved out of the power of the nobility and them was mutated into the version we see now. It sort of is due to English history. There is more- alot more (the Iriqois and the middle class being big ones), but it isn't the subject of the argument.
The systems that best restarin rulers are ones which checks on power and that feature large amounts of transparency. In principle any government could function using this.
I don't operate on faith. You keep saying that! And if I did, how would you criticize my ideas?
Okay, I believe in unicorns (not the magic ones)... unless it was a hoax. See how simple it was? God would take slightly more. You know something... appropriate.
If you had a pattern like that it could be random (see faces in toast). Of course, if it happened repeatedly, you'd have something screwy. If you had something invisible that takes up no area... that violates so many physical laws I don't know where to start.
Christianity is based on the idea that God cares enough about humanity to kill himself... and then there is "the good news".
It would be nice if you said "evidence" when I was making the claim...
and you do for the next two.
http://www.everyculture.com/North-America/Iroquois-Marriage-and-Family.html
They practiced polygamy but eliminated it by the late 1700s. Guess they don't count- they had contact with the Europeans, and more importantly were losing.
I need to find mobile hunter gathers...
honestly? I base my assertion of the fact that with so few people, not to mention the fact they are repeatedly refered to as egalitarian, while polygamy is the mark of inequality or land issues (in the case of polyandry). If you could find an article on hunter gather marriage practices, that would be helpful- the articles so far ignore it.
Simple really. If the second values were popularized by Christianity we should see them expressed early on. Otherwise they are values that are adopted by Christians and claimed for Christianity. Guess which values we see when the Christians gain power? They ban gladiator games and replace slavery with serfdom (which, unlike slavery, you can't be freed from). It is worth noting that they later reinstitutionalized slavery (can you imagine slavery being ever made legal again?) and people tended to watch excutions and animals being tortured for fun... sort of like gladiator matches.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/billions.html
He estimates 130 billion galaxies. That is alot of chances.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/section-4.html
Estimates a low value of 80 billion.
In short, there are enough dice.
I'm disputing that fact. Also, if you notice people who hold that atheism covers lack of belief
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/Weak-strong-atheism-agnosticism.htm
have a dedicated set for the differant types (which Flew didn't say) and they mention Greek roots (which Flew didn't say) and they take it as the correct definition (which Flew didn't say). So if it was invented and popularized, it had to be by someone after Flew who added on these features. If we are being paranoid (epilsy tree engaged), I'd say Dawkins- he has his meme theory ready to test- what better way to show its effectiveness?
Souls are simply a supernatural component to things. I'm simply asserting there is no supernatural component. Pain is caused by neurons.
If the soul isn't connected to what we do it can't affect free will. It can't allow pain to be felt- it just sits there like a free loader.
Except sentience and conciousness aren't said to have physical existance- they are descriptions of things that do.
You have faith and are okay with ignoring reality in order to look at consequences? What happens if other people lie about things? After all, it will make you feel happy that you have the answers and where right- so we should do that, right?
Truth must be valued if we are to have accurate beliefs about reality. Otherwise...
God is natural from God's point of view. It is actually a funny thought experiment- God is also a strong atheist- remember "you'd have to be God to know there is no God" jibe people occasionally make? Well, he can do that.
Morality itself is doing whats right. You can't prove that you or others should do it- otherwise it is self interest. Morality itself is based on factual reality- choosing to follow it isn't. This isn't faith however- it is known as "being a good person". And before you say "Sounds like free will", no, it isn't. It is still casually determined. A good person knows the have no choice in not doing evil.
As for justifying this to sociopaths... we don't. We imprison them. If they don't play by societies rules, society punishes them. Law and morality are two differant concepts however.
Eugenics. Most of the stuff they did do was blatently false, inaccurate and misleading. Although there are genetic links for many things, in many cases they are less than 100%, which is what they alleged.
Why do you think I am obcessed with knowledge? I know it isn't perfect (for example I'm beginning to think the "Muslim threat" is overhyped by Christians- wait and see, I guess), but we don't really have a choice know, do we?
I have read a blog from an atheist who bases his beliefs on faith. I have seen atheist anarchists and communists. Most atheists tend towards rationalism, but their are exceptions. And most of the congruence is due to rationalism, not atheism.
http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/04/cx_1104mckinseychina6.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-07/28/content_5445234.htm
The government doesn't own all the industries- it makes only 17% the GDP... but has half the workers and 57% of the industry.
I believe that they are ruled by the communist party and still consider themselves inheritors of the revolution. The country is extremely schizo right now. You might be right about transitional being the correct label.
Because self interest and morality are two differant things. Doing good in your own self interest is fine- but there are things that can't be accomplished by that. Usually things that involve dying or self sacrifice. Like this
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/531787/
I was refering to the fact the people you kill would go to heaven- they'd be better off! As for controls... well when the police disappear, people go on a looting spree, but tend not to do alot of killing. It suggests that controls hold people back from infromal "wealth redistribution" but that murder isn't as much a problem.
Oh... electron clouds. Yeah, that would be randomness.
Okay, I get it- the universe is partly random! Physics was NOT my best subject.
The funny part is that this is unrelated to atheism. Atheism is about God, not determinism.
And you had to spend you last sentance agreeing with me. Actually, the train analogy is apt- for the most part we don't have alot of choice in life. However, determinism also covers the choices we make, saying we made them because of our brain, which was programed by our past and genes. Randomness says it was determined by the crud at the foundation of the universe messing with the cells and free will says nasty things to logic and evidence beofre speading off.
Ghetto edit- I am not always right. However, relating to subjects directly on atheism and theism, my accuracy rate soars.
What? I'm not infallible- I just learnt today that a major event I was off on the date by three years- the striking down of laws against inter ratial marriage.
So, for the record, things I may have been wrong on (subject to future evidence).
The universe being deterministic.
The Iroquois being monogamous.
Probaly a few others, with even more that are badly said or iffy. However, none of these are related to the truth value of atheism.
Well, why am I saying these when determinism is the subject of this post?
1) It is a long and continuous argument that has spilled over.
2) Tim isn't actually a against determinism- he believes God is responsible for the "randomness".
3) He again accuses atheists of being inconsistant.
I'll look at Tim's responce later.
A deterministic universe is one where this is true and a clockwork universe is one where this is true in practice (using supercomputer's probably).,?i>
Could you provide some sort of citation for this distinction? Where did you get it from?
Did you make it up? I have never heard it before, and I've read a bit on this subject.
The differance is now we can question what society considers moral. We can tell others they are wrong and declare society isn't living up to its own standards. That is how the civil rights movement worked.
Exactly. And Martin Luther King Junior was a reverend, incidentally, and his movement was faith based.
I maintain my definition of faith. If you look at it it has two definitions that are simply "belief in x". When faith is belief where evidence doesn't matter, than it is in spite of belief- you don't need faith to believe things supported by evidence (as Tim and you have ACTUALLY displayed- using faith to justify things that you can't think of anything in opposition to me).
As I mentioned earlier, the "belief in x" definition of faith refers to a situation where evidence is simply not a part of the definition. That does not mean that it is not a part of the belief. I don't know what to say except that you're reading things into the dictionary definition which are not printed there.
In the websters definition of atheism, it doesn't mention evidence either.
It says "a. a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity"
So can I assume that atheists hold their beliefs without any evidence or contrary to evidence because evidence is not mentioned? By that logic, atheism is based on your concept of faith! But of course, this is a ridiculous interpretation of the definition.
you don't need faith to believe things supported by evidence
Yes, you do if the evidence is not conclusive. I feel like I've made this point several times, given dictionary cites to support it, but you still hold to your personal definition.
If a man says "I have faith that my wife won't cheat on me" does he mean he has no evidence?
Faith here is synonymous with trust, which is belief on incomplete evidence. If you have some evidence that religious people believe that faith is contrary to evidence then please expert the passage and give the citation. Maybe some group of people do believe this. I'm willing to be proven wrong. But I honestly believe you're misinterpreting the dictionary definitions that you cited.
A person could certainly have faith on zero evidence. That's "incomplete evidence" too. But
could you please either produce some authoritative text that supports your definition that faith is "against evidence" or else drop or concede the point.
I don't operate on faith. You keep saying that!
You believe in things which you offer evidence for but cannot prove. That is faith.
Also, you believe that all reports of miracles across the board are false. That is also faith.
It may be true. But you cannot prove it. Normally I'd just acknolwedge that you have a special definition of 'faith' but you haven't asked that I acknowledge that and I'm concerned that if I did make such an acknowledgement you'd continue misinterpreting what other people mean by faith.
Further, you base your beliefs on first premises just like anyone else. "The material world is real and not an illusion" is an assumption, for instance. Can you support that with evidence? Any evidence? That belief is faith. All knowledge is based on such basic assumptions, which can be disproven but not proven.
God would take slightly more. You know something... appropriate.
Such as?
Christianity is based on the idea that God cares enough about humanity to kill himself... and then there is "the good news".
Part of the Christian conception of God seems to be that the faith is a sort of moral shiboleth. I may have misunderstood things here, but theistic belief seems like an affinity test.
I base my assertion of the fact that with so few people, not to mention the fact they are repeatedly refered to as egalitarian, while polygamy is the mark of inequality or land issues (in the case of polyandry).
Does the evidence you've seen so far support that view? There is inequality in any society. People will be stronger, better farmers, better looking, at the top of a social organization and so forth. Perhaps material scarcity isn't the only factor in whether a society is polygamous?
You have faith and are okay with ignoring reality in order to look at consequences?
I'm not sure what you're referring to so it's hard to properly respond, but no I don't see how you could look at consequences while also ignoring reality.
We were discussing the consequences of theism. I didn't want to get sidetracked by an argument of whether I was "arguing from consequences" and just focus for a moment on what the consequences actually were so that we could resolve that point.
After all, it will make you feel happy that you have the answers and where right- so we should do that, right?
If you could show me that atheism could allow me to create a better society, I would seriously consider being an atheist. My beliefs should not be about how making me feel good. If, by accident, they are about that then I should change them to reflect a better set of priorities.
But I don't see atheism as being more helpful than certain theistic beliefs in improving society or even in helping others see material truth. Of course, that's a whole other discussion.
Morality itself is based on factual reality
Morality is also based on values. If you value pleasure above all else, you might be fine killing someone
who would live out the rest of their life in pain, for instance. If you value the good of the nation over the good of individuals, you might consider someone who was unproductive to be a waste of skin. If you value individual rights, you might respect their choice in the matter.
Any set of values is going to generate its own compliment of moral behaviors and moral logic, which will generate their own results. You cannot prove any set of values correct, but some might produce results which contradict the original assumptions. For instance, believing that power is the most important thing might not actually make you powerful. But you can't prove any particular value true or false.
So, for the record, things I may have been wrong on (subject to future evidence).
The universe being deterministic.
The Iroquois being monogamous.
Thanks for saying so, Sam.
That takes some courage to admit.
2) Tim isn't actually a against determinism- he believes God is responsible for the "randomness".
This was why I was careful to note earlier that you seemed to be discussing physical determinism (an unbroken chain of causes) and not psychological determinism (we have no free will.) You might want to be careful distinguishing between the two.
A deterministic universe is one where this is true and a clockwork universe is one where this is true in practice (using supercomputer's probably).
How, precisely, did you decide that this was the difference? Did you make it up? I have never heard it before, and I've read a bit on this topic.
If you give a source(s) for your reasoning, could you please explain how you used the source to reach this conclusion?
The differance is now we can question what society considers moral. We can tell others they are wrong and declare society isn't living up to its own standards. That is how the civil rights movement worked.
Exactly. And Martin Luther King Junior was a Reverend, incidentally, and his movement was faith based.
I maintain my definition of faith. If you look at it it has two definitions that are simply "belief in x". When faith is belief where evidence doesn't matter, than it is in spite of belief- you don't need faith to believe things supported by evidence (as Tim and you have ACTUALLY displayed- using faith to justify things that you can't think of anything in opposition to me).
As I mentioned earlier, the "belief in x" definition of faith refers to a situation where evidence is simply not a part of the definition of the word. It is not required to be an explicit absence of any evidence, much less a person believing "contrary to evidence." Tim and I have both asserted that we have what we consider evidence for our beliefs. Why ignore that?
I'm repeating myself here, because you seem to have talked around that point rather than addressing the evidence presented.
you don't need faith to believe things supported by evidence
Yes, you do if the evidence is not conclusive. I feel like I've made this point several times, given dictionary cites to support it, but you still hold to your personal definition.
If a man says "I have faith that my wife won't cheat on me" does he mean he has no evidence?
Faith here is synonymous with trust, which is belief on incomplete evidence. If you have some evidence that religious people believe that faith is contrary to evidence then please exerpt the passage and give the citation. Maybe some small group of people do believe this. I'm willing to be proven wrong. But I honestly believe you're misinterpreting the dictionary definitions that you cited, and that none of the dictionary definitions corrborated your definition. You read into them what you wanted.
Could you please either produce some authoritative text that supports your definition that faith is explicitly "against evidence" or else drop or concede the point.
I don't operate on faith. You keep saying that!
But you don't address my point.
You believe in things which you offer evidence for but cannot prove. That is faith by the dictionary definition. Also, you believe that all reports of miracles across the board are false. That is also faith.
It may be true or false. But you cannot prove it. Normally I'd just acknolwedge that you have a special definition of 'faith' but you haven't asked that I acknowledge that and I'm concerned that if I did make such an acknowledgement you'd continue misinterpreting what other people mean by faith.
Further, you base your beliefs on first premises just like anyone else. "The material world is real and not an illusion" is an assumption, for instance. Can you support that with evidence? Any evidence at all? That belief is faith. All knowledge is based on such basic assumptions, which can be disproven but not proven.
God would take slightly more. You know something... appropriate.
Such as?
Christianity is based on the idea that God cares enough about humanity to kill himself... and then there is "the good news".
Part of the Christian conception of God seems to be that religious faith is a sort of moral shiboleth. I may have misunderstood things here, but theistic belief seems like an affinity test. This is not to say that there is no evidence for faith. It's an attempt to counter your implied assertion that God's intent is to prove his power and existence to all people in a form that compels belief.
I base my assertion of the fact that with so few people, not to mention the fact they are repeatedly refered to as egalitarian, while polygamy is the mark of inequality or land issues (in the case of polyandry).
Does the evidence you've seen so far support that view? There is inequality in any society. People will be stronger, better farmers, better providers, better looking, at the top of a social organization and so forth.
You have faith and are okay with ignoring reality in order to look at consequences?
I'm not sure what you're referring to so it's hard to properly respond, but no I don't see how you could look at consequences while also ignoring reality. That seems contradictory.
We were discussing the consequences of theism. I didn't want to get sidetracked by an argument of whether I was "arguing from consequences." I wanted to just focus for a moment on what the consequences actually were so that we could resolve that point.
After all, it will make you feel happy that you have the answers and where right- so we should do that, right?
If you could show me that atheism could allow me to create a better society, I would seriously consider being an atheist. My beliefs should not be about making me feel good. If, by accident, they are about that then I should change them to reflect a better set of priorities.
I'd like to improve society. Theistic belief offers tools to that end. I think that a worldview which is effective must have some amount of truth behind it.
But I don't see atheism as being more helpful than certain theistic beliefs in improving society or even in helping others see material truth. We've been told that repeatedly, of course. But that's a whole other discussion.
Morality itself is based on factual reality
Morality is based on reality. It is also based on values. If you value pleasure above all else, you might be fine killing someone who would live out the rest of their life in pain, for instance. If you value the good of the nation over the good of individuals, you might consider someone who was unproductive to be a waste of skin. If you value life above sensory experience, you might try to prevent someone from killing themselves even if they wanted to die.
Any set of values is going to generate its own compliment of moral behaviors and moral logic, which will generate their own results. You cannot prove any set of values correct, but some might produce results which contradict the original assumptions. For instance, believing that power is the most important thing might not actually make you powerful. But you can't prove any particular value true or false.
So, for the record, things I may have been wrong on (subject to future evidence).
The universe being deterministic.
The Iroquois being monogamous.
Thanks for saying so, Sam.
That takes some courage to admit.
Wiki. They defined determinism as
the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences
and a clock work universe as
A "clockwork universe" can be thought of as being a clock wound up by God and ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics.
Yes, the idea is theistic- deistic in fact. However, the implication is that everything can be known and worked out once you have the laws of physics. The idea was based on its beauty, perfection and lawfulness... before reality began to intrude.
Suffice it to say, being able to predict things is not a requirement of a deterministic universe.
Martin Luther King was the Leader of the SCLC. THey were not the only civil rights group- the NAACP were also involved (Brown v Board of Education was their doing), as was the ACLU and SNCC. It was in no way a faith movement. Although religious language was used, they tended to focus on rights due to citizens and individuals and not rights handed down by God.
Except atheism is a conclusion. As such evidence is (generally) required. Faith is a method- and evidence is a competitor. If you have evidence, after all, you don't need faith.
When a man says "he has faith his wife won't cheat on him" it means he has trust in her faithfulness. Trust is not belief based on incomplete evidence- it is usually based on rather good evidence. In this case the fact that the wife displays affection for her husband and has never cheated on him before- if these aren't true than, yes, it would be "faith" faith.
Sure. For faith on zero evidence there is the belief in the tenets of any religion... despite the large number of logical inconsistancies. And, the cases where there is no possible way for someone to have information (the afterlife), but claiming that it is equally valid.
When there is a lack of evidence when there should be evidence... well, that is evidence against a claim. A good example would be... just about anything in religion. The effectiveness of prayer for starters. Apparently it doesn't work how it is supposed to- although more sophisticated theology does fine with it- but makes it irrelevant.
Things that can't be proven, but are backed with evidence can be operated on. It isn't faith- it is called... a hypothesis. Over time, with repeated validations it becomes more and more secure. Yes, the scientific method is the only reliable source of truth- to be fair, that is because if they find a better way, they steal all the best parts.
Actually I can't prove that the material world is actually real and not an illusion. However, it is irrelevant- I'd behave the same way and draw the same conclusions if it was and illusion with "programming" instead of "reality" being the only differance. After all, it is true that we exist only in a computer generated program... but if so the program shows consistancy and has other sentients. Nothing changes... except hackers get a second wind.
More appropriate proof of God? Contact has a good example. Other good methods-
Communicating telepathically to individuals
D&D divine magic
Have holy books that actually does bring comprehension and morality
Faith is a moral test? So believing in things that lack evidence (your definition) is a good thing? Isn't that a classic sign of insanity- paranoid schizos have beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.
Actually, hunter gather bands (groups below 50 individuals) are always egalitarian- they are on the move so they can't horde possessions, there is little to no ascribed status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_gatherer
In addition many hunter gatherer groups had customs designed to keep people from getting to powerful... and looked down on those who tried to accumulate power and favors.
Given that, and their small size, the idea of polygamy would be unbelievable to them. Not to mention there was the whole "kill a man to get his wives" in some groups.
I'll be honest- I am slightly distorting your argument. You aren't srguing for only monogamy- you are also arguing for the idea of marriage being sacred and people not being okay with mistresses on the side. Unfortunately that doesn't happen uniformly for Christians either.
Mormonism would be a good example, as would the existance of legalized prostitutuion for much of European history.
So although the mainstream support these ideas... there was and is a fair amount of hypocricy.
You argued that arguing about the truth value of the beliefs was getting no where and that you wanted to look at the consequences of the beliefs. This actually is valid in the field of ethical theory. However in this situation it is not.
Atheism can't make a better society than say... gravity theory. However if a societies population is atheist they don't have religious based problems. Or have people like this:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
http://www.berith.org/essays/martin_rape/
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
As for actual effects... type in religious violence and you get a million hits on google.
And where do those values come from? Reality. They are based on the idea that those values are the things that people want the most or are the way to achieve that for the most people.
Not really couragous- I'm a determinist, remmeber? Okay, bad joke.... I need a better punch line. On a more serious note, admiting to a complete stranger you where wrong because you failed to think something through or reasearch it is not a huge blow- I doubt I live in the same state as you. If you where someone I know face to face, I'd continue arguing the point, break off and then steal your arguments and switch positions.
Determinism for the universe vs determinism for individuals are the terms I use. If there are others, I'd gladly use them.
Wiki. They defined determinism as
the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences
and a clock work universe as
A "clockwork universe" can be thought of as being a clock wound up by God and ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics.
If you're saying that the difference between a clockwork universe and a deterministic universe is that a clockwork universe implies
deism or similar, then I agree.
Likewise, I agree that humans don't need to be able to predict the exact outcome of a deterministic universe for it to be deterministic.
However;
1. It seemed to be your original assertion that humans could, theoretically, do this.
2. So called 'probability waves' don't seem to actually be probability (particles plus a dice throw) but instead seem to be
matter smeared out over space, which coalesce at a random location because of certain events.
So at the very least, it is difficult to prove that all events are determined.
Faith is a method- and evidence is a competitor. If you have evidence, after all, you don't need faith.
Well, faith can be both a method and a conclusion. You decide to trust your wife. Your marriage works because of that trust.
Evidence does not compete with that trust. Trust is the same as faith. Consider the phrase "Blind faith." If faith had the definition that you
claim it does, "blind faith" would be redundant.
Trust is not belief based on incomplete evidence- it is usually based on rather good evidence.
Unless "good evidence" is impossible to disprove, then it is, in fact, "incomplete." If a thing has been
proved (in the academic sense), then it cannot be false, assuming that the premises the statement is based on are true.
I understand that you don't find religious evidence compelling, but why can't you put yourself in
someone else's shoes and understand that they may take a different view? Why not say;
"I don't find this evidence compelling, but other people do. I think they're wrong, but they believe that their views are based on good evidence. Thus,
when they say that their views are based on faith they are claiming that their views are based on evidence short of proof. Similarly, when I believe in anything I cannot
prove, even if I can offer some evidence for it, that is also faith."
Why not?
This is getting nowhere so I'll just try say;
1. Your definition is different than the meaning assigned to the word by the majority of religious people.
So your definition cannot be used to reliably interpret what most religious people mean when they say "faith." In other words, you have not shown that
religious people are deliberately choosing to define faith as contrary to all evidence, though you can believe that they are wrong.
2. The definition used by religious people is not in any way contradicted by the dictionary, as
has been demonstrated quite adequately. On the contrary, you've had to look for evidence where it didn't exist in the dictionary definition in order to support your
personal definition, claiming that because it didn't specifically mention evidence that that must mean the dictionary meant "without evidence."
You've said you're in favor of evidence, right, and the scientific method? So here's a test to resolve this issue.
You pick, say, three blogs of people who describe themselves as a person of Christian faith. True believers and mainstream.
We'll tell them the nature of our bet and ask them to give whatever evidence they have for their faith, and ask if they believe without evidence or against evidence.
If they say they believe against all evidence, I'll concede the point. If they claim to have any kind of evidence, even if you disagree
with it, as you certainly will, then you'll agree that religious people think that they have evidence for their beliefs, even if
it is evidence short of proof (and it will certainly be short of proof),
and evidence that you personally don't find compelling.
That seems like a fair test to determine what faith means. Are you up to it?
It isn't faith- it is called... a hypothesis. Over time, with repeated validations it becomes more and more secure.
But a person can believe in and have faith in a theory, if the evidence for it is non-conclusive.
What concerns me is;
1. You seem to seriously misrepresent the "hypotheses" expressed by many religions about the nature of God (and admittedly there can be
more than one hypothesis within a given religion. Some people are literalists, some interpret metaphorically, etc. I personally disagree
with many theories put forward by theistic folks.)
2. It is possible for a hypothesis to be good yet not proven true. "What is the best way to improve society?" for instance,
is one question addressed by religion which is hard to definitively prove true or false. I see a lot of evidence accruing in favor of Judeo-Christian faiths.
But it is a difficult questions since people can't automatically agree on what "good" even means.
If we can't nail down the starting assumptions (what is good?) it's hard to nail down the conclusion.
Does that make sense?
For faith on zero evidence there is the belief in the tenets of any religion.
This has already been totally disproved. There is evidence. You simply do not find it compelling.
Evidence that you do not find compelling or believe is contradictory (whether it is or not is another story) is not the same as zero evidence.
The effectiveness of prayer for starters. Apparently it doesn't work how it is supposed to-
How do you think that prayer is supposed to work? I don't claim to be certain myself, though I have some ideas.
Mostly I'm curious here. What were you praying for?
Actually I can't prove that the material world is actually real and not an illusion. However, it is irrelevant- I'd behave the same way and draw the same conclusions if it was and illusion with "programming" instead of "reality" being the only difference.
What if your memory isn't valid either? I'm not saying this to be petty. I'm trying to point out that
all beliefs start with assumptions which cannot be proven. All of them. The recognition that all
beliefs are based on assumptions is important for reasons I'll go into a bit later.
Contact has a good example.
A circle encoded in pi? Yes, that would be good evidence of a God that was trying to prove his existence.
But as I said earlier, the Judeo-Christian hypothesis seems pretty explicit that God is not trying to do this.
So you're trying to disprove some God who is not the Judeo-Christian God. The stated purpose is to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and
to judge people.
Have holy books that actually does bring comprehension and morality
Perhaps they do, but not to all people. People have a way of plugging their ears if they don't want to hear something.
Faith is a moral test? So believing in things that lack evidence (your definition) is a good thing? Isn't that a classic sign of insanity- paranoid schizos have beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean by "my definition" here or what you're trying to assert.
Sam, I believe in the scientific method for discovering physical truth, and all that physical truth implies.
I believe in evidence when evidence can be provided.
I also believe in recognizing the assumptions and uncertainties that go into any belief, whether the belief is moral or scientific.
I am not saying that believing in things contrary to evidence is good. You will understand what I write a lot better if
you consider my belief in evidence when interpreting anything I write, and interpret it within that context.
I am saying that some things are difficult to offer evidence for or against, and even harder to offer evidence for when another person does not want to believe the evidence, which is common.
Take the most basic question; what is good?
Some people believe pleasure is the highest good (and there are many different types of hedonists.) Some people believe power in itself is the highest good.
Some people believe loving our neighibor and helping others is the highest good. Some people believe truth is good. Some believe honesty doesn't matter.
You could think of many other things, here. Some people believe that their personal pleasure is the highest good, and use a different standard for judging
other people, whether they intend to or not.
How do you offer evidence for which first assumptions to use as the basis of your moral philosophy? There are an infinite number of things which might be "good" though humans tend to gravitate to a very small handful.
They follow instinct (pleasure, equality, power, hunger, ego protection etc.) Or they believe in enlightened hedonism, which realizes that short term pleasure for long term pain is a bad trade. Or they believe in some other entity has
determined "Good" for us.
But can you even give scientific evidence that pleasure is better than pain? No, you can't. You just like one and hate the other. That is affinity at its most basic. You like or dislike something
that you cannot prove true or false. Pleasure is a natural affinity. Pain is a natural aversion. If you enjoyed stabbing yourself in the stomach, could you give scientific evidence that it was bad to do that? Probably not, if pleasure is your highest goal.
Unless you can demonstrate a certain act to be short sighted (If I stab myself in the stomach now, I can't eat that chocolate bar later!)
I'm being absurd to try and make a point.
Some affinity is not so gross; A love of truth, for instance.
Some people don't care if something is true or not. They want to feel good. Or be right. Or be powerful. Or whatever. I think it's better if people love truth, but
how can you convince someone that truth matters if they don't think it does?
I am not talking here about the existance of God or about any physical phenomenon. I'm talking about the assumptions that we base our moral beliefs on in order to explain
why affinity is important.
You cannot prove that chocolate is better than vanilla or that helping your neighbor is better than killing them, unless you make
certain assumptions that you cannot offer evidence for.
So I'm going to stick to whether a religion accomplishes its stated goals better than the lack of religion.
Because once you make those basic assumptions about the value of those goals, the rest can be decided based on evidence.
But if you deny the value of the stated goals of religion, what evidence could persuade you to change your mind?
Actually, hunter gather bands (groups below 50 individuals) are always egalitarian- they are on the move so they can't horde possessions, there is little to no ascribed status.
So you're saying that in small hunter gatherer bands, that some men don't get more female attention? Some aren't stronger, smarter, better hunters, better musicians and so forth?
Materially, they're very equal, I totally agree. And I agree that many natives disdain power seeking.
I'll be honest- I am slightly distorting your argument. You aren't srguing for only monogamy- you are also arguing for the idea of marriage being sacred and people not being okay with mistresses on the side. Unfortunately that doesn't happen uniformly for Christians either.
Mormonism would be a good example, as would the existance of legalized prostitutuion for much of European history...there was and is a fair amount of hypocricy.
I agree entirely, religion doesn't make a society perfect even for those who are devout in their faith. My question is simply whether
it moves people closer to a stated goal. Does more devout Judiasm or Christianity = less infidelity or not? 2% less? 1%? Any difference at all? That's my question. I am not looking for perfection. I've given some evidence that it does, re: Brazil.
We can't just look at "Christian nations" here. We get better results looking at actual members of the faith, who are demonstratably devout (they attend religious services without any obvious political incentive, for instance.)
The link to the previous study of Brazillian men indicated Chrisitanity had some effect, even if it wasn't perfect.
Re: Mormonism
If being Eastern Orthodox reduces promiscuity and Mormonism increases it, we should note both results and use it to form
our opinions about the two groups. We can also look at the results of the practices (what kind of society does polygamy create?) and ask ourselves if we want that.
As for actual effects... type in religious violence and you get a million hits on google.
Type in; atheist immoral. 550,000 hits! I've just proved that atheists are immoral! Whee!
Seriously, though, you're familiar with the need for a 'control group' in any experiment, correct? Violence can occur in a religious context.
Violence can occur without a religious context. What I'm interested in is the difference in rates.
It is difficult to determine the exact effects of a religion, but it takes more rigor than a google search on two words.
You argued that arguing about the truth value of the beliefs was getting no where and that you wanted to look at the consequences of the beliefs. This actually is valid in the field of ethical theory. However in this situation it is not.
As I mentioned earlier, crazy people are less likely to design belief systems that work effectively towards a given end. Do you agree or disagree?
If you can show that religion cannot move towards its stated goals, I'll concede its uselessness.
Falsifiability is important, and this would falsify the hypothesis.
And where do those values come from? Reality.
Which values?
If you where someone I know face to face, I'd continue arguing the point, break off and then steal your arguments and switch positions.
Well, thanks for being up front about it.
Violence can occur without a religious context. What I'm interested in is the difference in rates.
I could have phrased that better, but hopefully you get the point. We can't just say "we gave 100,000 cancer patients this drug and 20,000 of them died. Obviously this drug is bad."
Such a conclusion ignores the question of how many people would have survived without the drug. We've strayed a bit here from the issue of determinism, of course. You understand the problem with "cherry -picking" data in forming a conclusion, right? Hopefully you understand what I'm saying here. Could you please rephrase it so I know you've heard me? Thanks.
Determinism for the universe vs determinism for individuals are the terms I use. If there are others, I'd gladly use them.
I just wanted to acknowledge what you're saying here. You can have a non-deterministic universe and still rightfully have a deterministic view of human psychology, meaning that the universe is not predictable by humans and possibly not even deterministic at all, but humans psychology is still determined entirely by material causes.
I agree, such a view is consistent with the available evidence. I don't agree that this is the only view consistent that could be consistent with the material world since the nature of the quantum variations in our universe, not to mention how the brain works, are not yet fully understood.
I agree that people seem to have a physical basis for consciousness. If you destroy a portion of the brain, the neurological activity associated with it is destroyed. If you kill a person, they die. If you drug them, they become intoxicated. Consciousness can be materially altered.
On the other hand, Tim has mentioned some experiences people have had that aren't readily understood using a materialistic worldview. Near death experiences are one of them. My neighbor had a NDE, for instance, that seemed to match the very standard pattern, with relatives telling her to go back because it wasn't her time. NDEs seem to defy easy material explanation and a purely mechanistic view of consciousness.
Perhaps they are a trick of the brain. Perhaps they are not. I mention this simply to show that there is evidence for alternate viewpoints, even if you don't find that evidence compelling.
Given that, and their small size, the idea of polygamy would be unbelievable to them. Not to mention there was the whole "kill a man to get his wives" in some groups.
Sam, don't those two statements of yours seem to contradict one another just a little bit?
Also this link you give actually seems to argue against you.
What Martin seems to have in mind is the kind of ethical reasoning that he suggests in this essay. Rape “violates the victims rights, it traumatizes the victim, it undermines the fabric of society, and so on.” Of course, an atheist could observe these things as easily as a theist. And an atheist could earnestly contend against rape for reasons of this sort. But in so doing, he seems to take a great deal for granted that is not defensible on the presuppositions of atheism. The kind of reasons Martin suggests sound more like a Christian hangover than “objective” reasons. Also, it is notable that as a matter of fact, very few societies in the past have had any notion of “rights” and not a few people today deny the Western notion of rights, including the officially atheist society, communist China.
How does that support anything that you've said? Why do you give as evidence websites that argue persuasively against your viewpoint?
From your "culture war" link, there is the quote, attributed to James Watt;
"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."
However he didn't actually say this. Wikipedia has some quotations which are a bit more spot-on;
Watt periodically mentioned his Christian faith when discussing his approach to environmental management. Speaking before Congress, he once said, "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."[9]
One apocryphal quote by Watt is "After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back"; there is no indication he actually ever said this. Glenn Scherer, writing for Grist, erroneously placed this remark in Watt's testimony to Congress.[10]. Journalist Bill Moyers, relying on the Grist article, mistakenly attributed the comment to Watt. After it was discovered that the quote was mistaken, Grist corrected their article and Moyers promptly apologized [11]. Watt has denied both the attribution and the associated characterizations of his policy.[12]
I can provide more evidence that the wiki article is correct if you like. We need to be very careful of people who are willing to libel others to make their point, without any regard for the truth, regardless of what their point is.
I'll return to this tomorrow. I have to find out if my fears are reasonable... just got that info yesterday.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Of Psychics and School Boards |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Supreme Wordplay »
|
Christian doctrine has long taught that we live and move inside "God" ...
Is this a mistype? This sounds like pantheism.
Posted by: Ryan W. on June 21, 2008 11:58 PM