AgnosticWeb.com - The Nature of this Conflict

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

xeno6696 — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:10:20 +0000

This is very parallel to my own opposition to the most recent war in Iraq. I don't think its possible for a country to keep its freedom when they had never fought for it in the first place--just as much as you couldn't expect Haiti to develop into an economic powerhouse overnight, neither could you expect a people who had no George Washingtons or Sam Adams to be able to cherish, maintain, and respect the freedom they have when it was not they themselves who sacrificed for it. -Going back to Haiti, I'm also not going to argue that they should "pick themselves up by their bootstraps," but I also don't think that international welfare is a solution. They need to encourage foreign investment--get factories set up there and some training and I bet they could compete cost-wise Vietnam for textiles, etc. But its not going to be a rapid transformation.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:43:54 +0000

> > DT: "Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development." > > > > I'm afraid that remark strikes me as being pretty close to racist. > > > I've answered George's opinion before, but I live in this hemisphere and know the Hiatian condition. Several million Hiatians are here in the US, because since the so-called country became free in 1820, no truly constructed country has ever developed. I'm no expert, so I present an expert column from the WSJ:-Another column from the WSJ re' Haiti, supporting my original comments that George objected to. The background of the people in Haiti has not allowed them to develop any maturity in country building. George, whose responsibility is it to develop that sort of maturity? Yours, mine, the useless UN?-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704533204575047163435348660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:03:16 +0000

> DT: "Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development." > > I'm afraid that remark strikes me as being pretty close to racist. - I've answered George's opinion before, but I live in this hemisphere and know the Hiatian condition. Several million Hiatians are here in the US, because since the so-called country became free in 1820, no truly constructed country has ever developed. I'm no expert, so I present an expert column from the WSJ:- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575038862061751140.html

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

dhw — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:46 +0000

I wrote a satirical romance about globules of matter that accidentally bumped into each other and accidentally created a mechanism that enabled them to replicate, adapt, produce new organs etc. George, who is normally sceptical of romances, is happy to swallow this one.-GEORGE: However, dhw wants us to bear in mind that all this bumping around and evolving just might perhaps, in some far-fetched way, have been guided by the intervention of some brainy interspatial quintessence of a disembodied sky fairy [...] we have better things to do with our time than worry about highly improbable unlikelihoods.-I'm not quite sure why you've used "we". You and the other members of your congregation, the editorial "we", or even the royal "we"? But I love the colourful language and the emphatic style, both of which make for entertaining reading, even if ridicule is no substitute for reason. There's only one thing really strange about the content. That is the fact that while you dismiss the existence of a God as a highly improbable unlikelihood, you consider it a highly probable likelihood that brainless globules of matter could accidentally create a mechanism so complex that the brainiest of human brains can barely comprehend let alone recreate it. However, we all set our own limits of credulity. By the way, I'm convinced that the lottery ticket I have for next week will win Â£1 million. May I offer it to you for a mere Â£100,000?-On a more rational note, you write: "lack of evidence for gods does provide evidence for atheism (i.e. not believing in gods)." I'd put that rather differently. Lack of what an atheist considers to be evidence for gods may provide what he considers to be evidence for atheism (i.e. believing there are no gods). Conversely you might argue: "Lack of what a theist considers to be evidence for materialism, which is essential to atheism, may provide what he considers to be evidence for theism (i.e. believing that there are gods). Another variation, which I like best, would be: Lack of what an agnostic considers to be evidence for gods and for materialism provides what he considers to be a good reason for agnosticism (i.e. not believing or disbelieving in gods).-You also write that the "presence of evidence in everything being made of atoms with mass, does provide evidence for materialism (i.e. believing in chemistry)."-First of all, materialism does not mean believing in chemistry. It means believing that physical matter is the only reality. It is perfectly possible to be a theist and to believe in chemistry as the science that explains how God puts things together.-Secondly, "the presence of evidence in everything being made..." doesn't make sense to me. Evidence of what?-Thirdly, the existence of a physical world made of atoms with mass (which no-one in their right mind would deny) only provides evidence of the existence of a physical world made of atoms with mass. It cannot provide evidence that physical matter is the ONLY reality, as that would entail proving that there is no reality outside the physical world, which is impossible. I'm sorry to say, then, that if that is what you mean, your statement is what some people might call a "logical fallacy".

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

George Jelliss — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:34:28 +0000

dhw writes a romance, edited version: "Once upon a time there were lots of globules of inanimate matter floating around, and they kept bumping into each other, until one day some of them bumped in such a way that they replicated themselves, [and so] become animate, capable of adapting to different environments and XcreatingX [evolving] new bits, after a very long time, they produced brainy beings". This is all true. -However dhw wants us to bear in mind that all this bumping around and evolving just might perhaps, in some far-fetched way, have been guided by the interventions of some brainy interspatial quintessence of a disembodied sky fairy, or something like that, or perhaps something not like that, we shouldn't rule out any possibility just because we have no evidence for it. And of course we don't, in theory, rule out these multitudinous possibilites, but we do, in practice, because we have better things to do with our time than worry about highly improbable unlikelihoods.-dhw offers the thought: "Disbelief in a God does not provide evidence for materialism." True. But lack of evidence for gods does provide evidence for atheism (i.e. not believing in gods). And presence of evidence in everything being made of atoms with mass, does provide evidence for materialism (i.e. believing in chemistry).

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

dhw — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:05:36 +0000

GEORGE: I'm simply taking the facts as we know them and not weaving any romances.-Here's another romance for you: Once upon a time there were lots of brainless globules of inanimate matter floating around in the wind/water/soup, and they kept brainlessly bumping into each other, until one day some of them brainlessly bumped into each other in such a way that quite accidentally they replicated themselves. Not only did they replicate themselves, but they also managed, quite brainlessly and accidentally, to become animate, to become capable of adapting to different environments and even of creating brand new and very useful bits and pieces which would also replicate themselves. These brainless mechanisms were so flexible that, after a very long time, they even produced brainy beings who tried deliberately to construct the mechanisms that had created themselves by accident. But, dear reader, until this very day they've been unable to do it. Why? Because brainy though they are, they're not as brainy as the brainless globules that had accidentally and brainlessly created the mechanisms.-There may be a romantic sequel to this romance. One day the brainy beings may succeed in creating the mechanisms, and they will be awarded the Nobel Prize for their braininess in proving that you don't need a brain to create the mechanisms they have just created.(Some unromantic people might call this a logical fallacy.)-*********** DHW: That life-form may very well be vastly different from ours. If you're going to ask where it came from, no-one can answer, and that's one of the reasons why I'm an agnostic and not a theist. Substituting one mystery for another merely shifts the problem, but that doesn't change by one iota the problems linked to the quasi-religious faith of materialism.-GEORGE (in response): We could of course speculate that the parameters of our universe were set by human-like scientists in some previous universe, but this would not explain where life came from, originally, only set it back further in time.-You have repeated my own argument, except of course for the last bit about materialism.-********** GEORGE: They [various speculators] could be right. You could be right. But I need more evidence.-Exactly my feelings, in relation to their speculations, my own speculations, and your speculations. I do believe you are in danger of becoming an agnostic! To help you on your way, and since I'm in creative mood, let me offer you two axiomsisbelief in materialism does not provide evidence for a God.-You'll like that, I'm sure. Of course its converse is equally trueisbelief in a God does not provide evidence for materialism.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

xeno6696 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:05:50 +0000

George,-You've got yourself trapped in a box, inside and looking out. -When you ask:-But why do they choose to be irrational?-You do the following:-1. Assert your position is more rational for all people. -2. That anyone who analyzes the same information as you but reaches a different philosophical conclusion than yours is irrational. -3. That everyone starts out on the same philosophical and cultural footing.-4. That among all philosophies there is a philosophy that "trumps" all other philosophies. -5. That among all people you have the right to choose what it is that other people call irrational in their own philosophies. -6. That you are completely detached from any and all perspective.-Both Dawkins and yourself claim that the proper place to start is to have 0 assertions, no belief at all. (This is fine, I share this view.) But you have to be at a certain point intellectually, to even be able to make this claim. You have to have a certain level of maturity, and I would go so far to say even, a certain IQ. Most importantly, a certain culture. -In order to be as "rational" as you or I, one must accept and adhere to a level of rigor and discipline higher than what is necessary for nearly every other man; man is an expert in making snap judgments and estimations--it isn't just an expertise, it is what helped us evolve to where we are. But what someone chooses to believe or disbelieve is of no consequence to you or Dawkins, or myself, ultimately. What you see as irrational I see as a judging mind making sense of what they perceive and interpret based upon what they know and feel. And you can't dissociate feelings; it is something that some people value more than rational reason, and neither of us have an claim to that save when [EDIT] some disturbance of the law results--and no freethinker has any more right to claim justice than any theist of any ilk. There is no monopoly on truth. -[EDITED]

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

George Jelliss — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:49:20 +0000

dhw: "First of all, I'm not presuming anything. It's all pure speculation, as with your equally speculative materialism."-You are offering a selection of "speculations" or "presumptions" or "axioms" or "imaginings" whatever you want to call them. For all of which there is no evidence. I'm simply taking the facts as we know them and not weaving any romances.-It is you who is "equivocating" over the meaning of "life". We could of course speculate that the parameters of our universe were set by human-like scientists in some previous universe, but this would not explain where life came from, originally, only set it back further in time. You prefer to speculate that there is some form of disembodied life form (a god), but this is far more speculative, since it requires the existence of something that has never been seen and is probably impossible on our understanding of physics.-I see very little difference between these "speculations" and those of people like von Daniken who maintained, from selected evidence, that our history was shaped by alien spacemen, of David Icke, who thinks we are ruled by shape-shifting lizards. They could be right. You could be right. But I need more evidence.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

dhw — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:45:22 +0000

DHW: I don't see the alternative to abiogenesis as a "spiritual miracle", but as a conscious mind working scientifically. GEORGE: This is exactly what I mean. You are presuming the pre-existence of "a conscious mind". i.e. a life-form, to explain the origin of life, and later the emergence of consciousness in that life. This is a simple logical fallacy.-First of all, I'm not presuming anything. It's all pure speculation, as with your equally speculative materialism. Secondly, you have created a logical fallacy by an equivocation with the expression "the origin of life". Of course if we meant ALL life, we could hardly argue that ALL life originated in a different form of life! In our discussions, however, you know very well that we're talking about the origin of life on Earth.-Nevertheless, the above would still be a logical fallacy if one of two basic premises were true. The first is your own: namely, that life on our planet began spontaneously. If you're right, then of course there is no pre-existing life-form to account for life on Earth. If you're wrong (i.e. if life on Earth is the product of design), then there has to be a form of life that created ours. Simple logic, no fallacy. And that life-form may very well be vastly different from ours. If you're going to ask where it came from, no-one can answer, and that's one of the reasons why I'm an agnostic and not a theist. Substituting one mystery for another merely shifts the problem, but that doesn't change by one iota the problems linked to the quasi-religious faith of materialism. -The other premise is the assumption made by many theists that God knows exactly what he's doing all the time, is all-powerful and omniscient, and humans with their extreme consciousness are the be-all and end-all of his creation. In that case, why did he bother with the whole rigmarole of evolution? Answer by some theists: he didn't. Read the Bible. Well, if I did believe in a God, that would not be my image of him. I would see him as a scientist, consciously experimenting and refining his creation, while at the same time leaving a lot to chance because that would be essential to the entertainment value of his work. I'd be inclined to embrace David's idea of God learning as he goes along. Just like the origin of life, the origin and refinement of consciousness would therefore be part of God's experimentation ... possibly with the aim of creating a creature close to his own image, much as scientists are trying to create robots in the human image. Again, there's no logical fallacy. Only a different basic premise.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

George Jelliss — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:45:46 +0000

xeno wrote: "... each individual human being gets to determine what they qualify as important. To some people, internal consistency and reproducibility simply are not important. Empiricism isn't important. If those things aren't important to a person, guess what--you, myself, Dawkins--no one on earth--can do anything about that, because in order to come in line with your view or Dawkins' view, those things must be important. Dawkins can call it a delusion till he's blue in the face, but it isn't going to change anything."-Well obviously, if someone is determined to be irrational then arguing rationally with them is not going to get very far. But why do they choose to be irrational? Why would anyone choose to be irrational? Most things we do in life have to be based on rational empirical judgments. Otherwise we would get run down crossing the road because we ignore the traffic, or we would be bankrupted because we can't add up our shopping bills, or we would end up in jail because we can't appreciate the need for laws.-Personal or traditional fantasies about the universe being run by some supermind, existing before human life appeared, based on no reproducible evidence, are irrational, but need not be harmful unless they start to impinge on our understanding of reality. Believing it may not have practical adverse consequences, unless it be that those who do not conform to it are persecuted, which is unfortunately exactly what is happening in many parts of the world.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

xeno6696 — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:58:16 +0000

xeno wrote: "An atheist looks at the evidence for evolution and says "Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life, and a scientifically minded theist says "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!"" My conclusion was that both conclusions were being drawn from the same data, but neither conclusion is testable and both are philosophical--NOT scientific. > > I would phrase it: "An open-minded scientist looks at the evidence for evolution and says Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life." There is no need to begin with an atheistic or theistic assumption. > -Well, in the context of my paper it was atheist and theist because the fight over evolution is about exactly these two groups; materialists vs. immaterialists. It has nothing to with science, its a philosophical battle. Massimo Pigliucci agrees on this point. --> The argument that "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!" is just circular. Mind is a function of life.-But not to people who aren't materialists.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

xeno6696 — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:50:03 +0000

xeno wrote: "All of us bring a philosophy to the table, a metaphysic if you will, that frames how we interpret everything we see around us." > > The scientific philosophy, which I espouse, maintains that one's presumptions should be as minimal as possible, and one's beliefs based on the soundest of evidence. Where do you start? > -As far as my own perspective, I'm in line with you, but with what I would consider an *extra* level of mathematically-founded skepticism. I also recognize that anything that has an "-ism" attached to it is a philosophy and that there is no absolute philosophy. In your post you asserted that your philosophy was somehow superior to all other philosophies--however, each individual human being gets to determine what they qualify as important. To some people, internal consistency and reproducibility simply are not important. Empiricism isn't important. If those things aren't important to a person, guess what--you, myself, Dawkins--no one on earth--can do anything about that, because in order to come in line with your view or Dawkins' view, those things must be important. Dawkins can call it a delusion till he's blue in the face, but it isn't going to change anything. -> > xeno: "I don't see Dawkins or other atheists heading into third-world countries informing the populace that all gods are false." > > However, he has written a book "The God Delusion" that maintains, and indeed shows, that most forms of religious beliefs in gods are delusions. He doesn't need to go amissionising these days, his ideas get distributed around the world far more quickly by modern methods of communication. He does however allow for a very watered down version of god-belief as being non-delusional, namely the type associated with Einstein or Spinoza.-Except that many people in those countries have things more important to them than reading Dawkins, like feeding their families and maintaining cultural connections. And even in those few countries where people have the luxury of money and can read, my bet is that they dismiss Dawkins as offhandedly as he does them, because again there is a philosophical and cultural difference between them.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:57:58 +0000

> DT: "Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development." > > I'm afraid that remark strikes me as being pretty close to racist. > > Here is an alternative point of view that I read on another forum: > > "Quake-proof buildings are cheap and easy to construct if timber is available or steel affordable. Human greed, in the form of the deforestation of the Carribean Antilles by international capital and the control of substandard building by a small band of absentee landlords has combined well with undue profit taking by the concrete companies: the result is the wholesale murder of thousands in the name of capitalism."- If you really knew the history of Haiti you would not have classified my remarks the way you did. The Dominican Republic is on the same island, and the contrast is enormous. The history of both countries is intertwined. Explore the issue of why the difference. I've travelled in many third world countries. Kenya, Chile, Equador, Mexico, Fiji, Thailand,& India are not Haiti, to mention some of the places I've been.-Your remarks tend to indicate that you believe in post-modern multiculturalism and diversity, and the dangers of the philosophic basis of capitalism, rooted in English and French philosophers of the Enlightenment. If you wish to guess who I am then I may guess about you.-I live in a Texas town that is 75% black. We have dinner with black friends, we party with them, and we work side by side with them on my ranch. As a young man I supported desegregation very actively. but I can be clearly honest about Haiti in my viewpoint.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:36:05 +0000

xeno wrote: "An atheist looks at the evidence for evolution and says "Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life, and a scientifically minded theist says "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!"" My conclusion was that both conclusions were being drawn from the same data, but neither conclusion is testable and both are philosophical--NOT scientific. -I would phrase it: "An open-minded scientist looks at the evidence for evolution and says Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life." There is no need to begin with an atheistic or theistic assumption.-The argument that "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!" is just circular. Mind is a function of life.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:27:32 +0000

DT: "I am not praying to Nature. I am connecting with a universal intelligence of which my mind is a part. It is a shame that you are not connected."-I am fortunate not to have been indoctrinated with god-belief.- DT: "Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development."-I'm afraid that remark strikes me as being pretty close to racist. -Here is an alternative point of view that I read on another forum: -"Quake-proof buildings are cheap and easy to construct if timber is available or steel affordable. Human greed, in the form of the deforestation of the Carribean Antilles by international capital and the control of substandard building by a small band of absentee landlords has combined well with undue profit taking by the concrete companies: the result is the wholesale murder of thousands in the name of capitalism."

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:14:30 +0000

xeno wrote: "All of us bring a philosophy to the table, a metaphysic if you will, that frames how we interpret everything we see around us."-The scientific philosophy, which I espouse, maintains that one's presumptions should be as minimal as possible, and one's beliefs based on the soundest of evidence. Where do you start?- xeno: "I don't see Dawkins or other atheists heading into third-world countries informing the populace that all gods are false."-However, he has written a book "The God Delusion" that maintains, and indeed shows, that most forms of religious beliefs in gods are delusions. He doesn't need to go amissionising these days, his ideas get distributed around the world far more quickly by modern methods of communication. He does however allow for a very watered down version of god-belief as being non-delusional, namely the type associated with Einstein or Spinoza.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:56:17 +0000

dhw writes: "I don't see the alternative to abiogenesis as a "spiritual miracle", but as a conscious mind working scientifically"-This is exactly what I mean. You are presuming the pre-existence of "a conscious mind", i.e. a life-form, to explain the origin of life, and later the emergence of consciousness in that life. This is a simple logical fallacy.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

xeno6696 — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:34:00 +0000

"Rabbi David" has admonished me for saying that a watered-down God without attributes doesn't serve much of a purpose. He thinks I want "a soft and fuzzy father figure" to nurture me through life, though he realizes that I personally "don't need such a figure to enjoy life." > > Indeed I don't. My life until now has been wonderfully fulfilling, I count myself very lucky, and am happy to use and enjoy whatever abilities Chance or God has given me. Perhaps the time will come when I would appreciate a fuzzy father, but no, that is not what lies behind my remark at all. What I was trying to say was that a God without attributes was irrelevant to our lives. A God without attributes is impersonal. Your "tough-loved God" has attributes; if he expects me to "rise above the challenges", he has attributes; if he is "out there, still watching", he has attributes; and above all if he corresponds to the vision of a loving God that Frank believes in, he has attributes. My remark was made against the deist God and against the concept of a universal intelligence pure and simple. This was what I understood by George's description of a vague, ineffectual, watered-down version. To put it bluntly, if God is not interested in his creations, what is the point in having him there? If he is interested, then he has attributes.-I'd have to say that as someone who prefers a more visceral God, that I also think the propensity to destroy is something that I find intriguing. I find a God that throws things at you in order to trip you up to be a more comforting notion than Grandfather. Every time you succeed you beat God. (My Teutonic heritage peeking through again.)

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

xeno6696 — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:09:50 +0000

dhw, > > ... Do you really believe there are no Deist, Christian, Muslim or Jewish scientists at work today? Or do you think they're all schizophrenics? > -I have to say that with this particular thread, my "conversion" as it were to agnosticism is essentially complete. There is no way to remove perspective from this debate, and therefore all answers one generates is based purely on perspective. Back when I started college, I wrote a paper discussing Creationism vs. Evolution that essentially said as much. "An atheist looks at the evidence for evolution and says "Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life, and a scientifically minded theist says "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!"" My conclusion was that both conclusions were being drawn from the same data, but neither conclusion is testable and both are philosophical--NOT scientific. -My initial break from atheism though was really because of Dawkins. At first, he seems intelligent and well-spoken... but before long you begin to see exactly where his hatred creeps in, and before long he's arguing that all theists are idiots. For science to spread and not die it must be pluralistic, and that means that contrary to what Dawkins says, we need more theists. We need more Francis Collins. Why? Theists won't listen to the "enemy," but for Collins to be evangelical and stand up and say "Evolution is fact," it shakes the foundation of that particular religion--and by getting more people like that, we can help the 1/2 of the country that thinks evolution is false. Not just natural selection, but evolution itself.

The Nature of this Conflict (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:49:19 +0000

> My remark was made against the deist God and against the concept of a universal intelligence pure and simple. This was what I understood by George's description of a vague, ineffectual, watered-down version. To put it bluntly, if God is not interested in his creations, what is the point in having him there? If he is interested, then he has attributes.-Thank you for correcting me. You are describing the God I believe in, wth the attributes you listed. I have no proof that God is as loving as religions claim. But He is deeply interested in us. As Schroeder has described, there is a degree of 'process', in that He learns from us, and I doubt that He is an inactive diety. He tweaks things now and then.