Comments by steve99

Comment #86495 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 12:19 pm

But what sort of humanity would have resulted from the absence of such a choice: scientifically, technologically efficient automata.

No - Us.

652. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86484 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 11:47 am

It probably did not happen literally in the manner recorded in Genesis, but it is true in a sense which is much more crucial to the way things are than in the merely literal sense.

I am afraid it is either true or not, and it isn't. How can it be helpful to imagine a false past when Nature was kind and we all lived in blissful painless harmony? This is shameful. It demeans the achievements of humanity over the millenia. We have come so far, and provided so much benefit for each other in terms of medicine, culture and education. I think it does nothing but harm to consider what we have achieved in the face of Nature as 'fallen'.

I would actually encourage people on this thread to doubt their certainties from time to time. Don't close your minds so readily to seemingly unscientific (stress on the word seemingly) and non-empirical routes to truth.

I am afraid I don't understand what 'unscientific' means. Should I not discuss things with others, compare experiences, look for some consistency in what people feel and say?

By the way, I hope my strong questioning does not put you off - I am thoroughly enjoying this debate, and hope you continue to post.

653. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86476 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 11:06 am

Elli: That was astonishing! But perhaps I do have a strange mind, as I find no trouble reading things upside down or backwards either.

ADH:

I believe this sense we have of a mysterious affinity reflects how humanity chimed in harmoniously with nature before the fall.

We never did chime in harmoniously. Only a fundamental Creationist would claim that, and I am sure you aren't one. Life was hard, and bitter. We can see this from medical examination of ancient skeletons. We know that people suffered from the pain of arthritis, and dental problems, without our modern medicine. Can you imagine that kind of life?

A classic case of the genetic fallacy Dr. B. Just because you can trace the mechanics of religious experience in our brains does nothing to disprove the authenticity of the experience.

It certainly does. It is called Occam's Razor. The simpler explanation is temporal lobe disturbance rather than vastly complex supreme being influencing your mind. If you don't need external causes, it is foolish to presume them.

Once you know the mechanics of how a plane flies, don't you think it would be rather silly to admire the views of a passenger that they were, in fact, borne aloft by angels during the flight?

654. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86465 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 10:34 am

At this point Rudy will almost certainly be getting my vote.

Not that I want to interfere in US politics, but it might be worth researching his recent statement about cancer treatment comparing the USA and the UK. He seems to have an interesting relationship with the truth.

655. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86464 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 10:30 am

Maybe they were Christian dolphins. Not to dispute the facts of this story, but I often wonder if dolphins really do consciously rally to the defence of humans.

There is a long history of reports of it.

Or is it possible (more likely) that, being in the vicinity by coincidence, they merely react instinctively to sharks as a natural enemy.

I don't think that fits. Dolphins can act agressively towards sharks. This was acting in a defensive way, and defending a particular individual - the diver. If they were just looking after themselves, they would have behaved differently.

656. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86455 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 9:15 am

I think you're missing the point. ADH thinks that only humans have souls. That's precisely why our 'value' is so much higher than that of a chimp, for example. Sickening, isn't it?

It is sickening. I just can't imagine anyone looking into the face of a great ape, or watching whales and dolphins at play, and thinking that they aren't pretty much on a par with us, and that they have morals too. There was a recent story of dolphins rescuing a surfer from a shark after he was attacked.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21689083/
They formed into a defensive ring around him and kept the shark at bay while he struggled to the shore. Although suffering from major loss of blood, he survived. I can't understand anyone not seeing that as an act of kindness and bravery on the part of the dolphins. It was a moral act.

I realise what his view is; I was trying to show that it need not be so simple. It doesn't have to be 'if all animals have souls, then they all have to be treated equally', which I think was his objection to animals having souls.

657. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86450 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 8:59 am

- The definition of moral and immoral: this is what I've tried to present so far. To define morality we have to use the words good and bad. But what is the meaning of these words in the physical word? What can they mean if they have no connection with a) God and b) the transcendent soul of human beeings.

Sorry, but I just don't get it. Why should they gain meaning because of a connection with God and the transcendent soul? This is nothing more than stringing words together. It makes as much sense to me as saying 'how can good and bad have meaning unless connected to cheese'?

People keep telling me that God instantiates goodness, but not how.

The motivation for good: In this world the morally good act and the most profitable act are not the same. If there is no afterlife then how could you motivate someone to be good?

You don't need to. Plenty of people who don't believe in an after live do good. Millions of them, so this question is answered by just observing people. Is Dawkins evil? Why does he do good?

The problem of free will: The idea of morality postulates the existence of free will, but as far as I can see, this is only possible if there is a part of human nature that is indipendent of the physical world.

We have no idea what free will means in the physical world, so it is meaningless to require free will to be dissociated from it. Why should a physical world negate free will?

658. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86447 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 8:47 am

But indirectly it was an answer to the question about whether I consider chimps to have souls. Why stop at chimps? Does atheism not require you to assign equal value to every species?

Even if you assume that souls exist, surely we should value animals according to the 'amount' of soul they have. This could be rather like the way we value them according to the amount of mind. We rate ants below rats, below apes and so on.

Why does everything have to be so black and white?

659. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86425 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 7:29 am

It is where God is not. The utter and eternal absence of God.

I thought God was omnipresent.

660. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #86422 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 7:25 am

Sorry Philip, I hope you don't mind me butting in, but I have had a revelation....

So if it's more or less well known that the belief that the brain produces consciousness is not based on anything very solid, your challenge for me to write a peer reviewed thesis about this makes little sense. It's not like I am claiming something new.

Ah! After all these months I finally see the mistake you are making.

You are confusing 'the brain does not produce consciousness' with 'consciousness can exist free of the brain at some point'. These are two entirely different ideas. No major scientist seriously doubts that during life, consciousness is produced by the brain. This is clearly indicated by the results of an impact between skull and baseball bat, or the brain and excessive alcohol. What happens after that is another matter.

You are arguing like this: "People can obviously survive by themselves, so the claim that before birth, women produce babies is not based on anything solid."

661. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86398 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 6:23 am

Now its important to point out here (and I'm sure you're aware of this) that both Cohen and Wheen are signatories of the Euston Manifesto. The reaction to this manifesto, to say the least, has been controversial. To quote from wikipedia "critics argued it contained too many statements of the obvious, that it had little to say about imperialism or the power of global corporations, and that it was in reality a front for its authors' support for the current foreign policies of the British and American governments."

Well, to be honest, critics would say that, wouldn't they?

So one could fairly argue that the individuals you put forward are hardly objective critics of Chomsky, being highly critical of "anti-Americanism".

Well, who would you claim would be an objective critic? At least these people seem to have consistent viewpoints....

Surely you agree that your expression "his beloved Serbs" is a bit of a cheap shot.

Perhaps, but Chomsky's apparent denial of historical events annoys me.

Here's what Chomsky himself says about critics who charge him with being reflexively anti-American:

But that is the way people like Chomsky seem to me to work - they compartmentalise. They act one way, but then declare they are doing something else, and are actually reasonable people. It reminds me of George Galloway's praise for Saddam, which he then flatly denied.

I can't pin it down precisely, but Chomsky seems to me to share with others (such as Galloway and Pilger) a kind of distorting lens through which they view both current events and history. Everything they write and say seems reasonable in and of itself, until you compare them with historical facts, then it seems to me that the bias becomes apparent.

I am prepared to have my mind changed. But all I can say is that reading from a sample of journalists and writes who I consider to have integrity (and after all, how do you measure these things?), and reading the writings myself, I find Chomsky problematic.

662. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86384 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 5:56 am

I say that if there is no transcendence than the word 'morality' is meaningless.

Something that deeply puzzles me is why anyone should think that morality becomes meaningful if there is 'transcendence'. All that is happening is two words are put together: 'morality' and 'transcendence'. Unless an actual mechanism can be provided connecting the two, it is meaningless, as are vague phrases like 'God instantiates goodness' - how does he?

663. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #86382 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 5:51 am

See post 230, or #86373 in this very page.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work. It is the same argument used by Satanists: Satan is the standard by which we should be measured, and we should all work to fulfill Satan's plan.

Unless you have some measuring tool to indicate whether the most powerful being is good or evil, it is ridiculous to claim that God instantiates goodness.

Please point to this measuring tool that allows you do distinguish between God being perfectly good, perfectly evil, or perfectly neutral. And, 'it is obvious' is not good enough.

664. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #86376 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 5:36 am

The problem for atheism is that that knowledge cannot be grounded in a naturalistic worldview.

That is just plain Creationist talk, and, of course, there are plenty of atheists who believe in the supernatural:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/11/28/buddhism-and-atheism.htm

"Lots of people in the West misunderstand Buddhism, especially it's general lack of any divine figures. They don't realize that, for many, Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion. People in the West are accustomed to religions all being theistic, so the idea of an atheistic religion is almost incomprehensible."

(But, I guess, as usual, you will claim to know more than the Buddhists themselves, and declare them not atheists).

As Dawkins wrote in his "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life", there is no good and evil. But if there is no good and evil, how can one decide or even discuss that to let that mother die was evil? You see? It's incoherent.

All this means is that there is no external good or evil intrinsic in the Universe. It does not mean that we can't judge things as good or evil by our own standards.

It is incoherent to claim that there is some objective standard without giving evidence for that standard.

665. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86347 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 2:56 am

Strictly speaking science only models physical phenomena.

Oh, I had missed this joke.

No, Dianelos, strictly speaking science studies objective reality. Even the supernatural is amenable to scientific study. Even the abstract and non-physical is subject to scientific study. Mathematics was termed 'the Queen of the Sciences' by Gauss, yet it deals with abstract reality, not physical reality.

Stop trying to redefine words. I know what you are trying to do here - to exclude your GodWorld from the same laws and rules as the physical reality you so dislike.

666. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86330 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 1:52 am

What I also cant help wondering is whether there are never any moments when you guys wonder whether you are not in fact "deluded". Do atheists never have moments of uncertainty? Moments when you have to, so to speak, press your fingers into your ears to keep out the voice of God.

I can honestly say, for myself, no. I have warm fuzzy feelings, and a sense of being guided by various thoughts, but those are in my own head. What I don't understand is why people assume that these thoughts and feelings are external - perhaps you could help me with that?

Also, don't you think you are possibly diminishing what people can achieve, when they make peace with each other and transcend their history and culture, by claiming this is God's work, and not theirs?

By the way... hope your flu is better!

667. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86318 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 1:40 am

And yet, you tried to say "scientific naturalism", falls apart because you can't fathom quantum mechanics, so objective reality fuzzies away, and you can shoehorn in whatever makes you happy, namely theism.

You see, Dianelos misses two key logical points:

First, the issues raised by QM question "objective reality", not just "objective 'physical' reality" (whatever that means). It does not matter if the things QM are observing are elves rather than electrons - we are still seeing odd things happen.

Second, even if one model of reality is wildly wrong, this is no evidence for an alternative model such as idealistic theism. You have to start from scratch and come up with a new model that does better than the original. I would love to see any experimental predictions of idealistic theism.

You know what? I am going to call Dianelos a full-on creationist. Because that is what he is. Just like creationists look at fossils and the supposed gaps and say that we are being fooled into believing in evolution, and the fossils are the result of magic (God's work), Dianelos claims that we are being fooled into believing in a physical world, and the observations of QM are the result of magic (God's work).

I claim that whenever someone looks at scientific results, and (this part is important) against the beliefs of just about all the experts in that field, claims that these results are too unbelievable or absurd, and a better explanation is 'God did it', they are, for all intents and purposes, a Creationist. The arrogance of believing that they know more than the experts in the field is one of the most serious symptoms.

668. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86169 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 1:49 pm

No, scientific naturalism is full of holes as a matter of fact: it cannot account for the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants, it cannot account for free will, it cannot account for consciousness, it cannot account for objective ethics, it cannot account for intentionality (in the philosophical sense), and, what's amazing, it cannot even produce a converging description of how objective reality is (scientific naturalists cannot even agree whether there is one or many physical universes, whether physical reality is deterministic or not, whether the wavefunction is real or not, whether an electron moving from point A to B in between passes through all points in the universe or not, and so and so forth; arguably it cannot even produce a logically coherent description of reality). These are facts. And what's worse it's also a fact that both the number and the size of the holes is growing; at the beginning of the 20th century when science was still classical the situation was much better than now, but since then scientific discoveries have pushed scientific naturalism into an ever shaky place - which is a problem for scientific naturalism but not for science of course which is doing just splendidly. So scientific naturalism does not look good at all right now.

Nonsense. The reason why there is more unexplained (like fine tuning) is that the area that science is studying has vastly increased. There was no study of quantum mechanics centuries ago, so there were no gaps in our knowledge of it. Your argument is like suggesting we abandon the use of maps because we don't have any knowledge of the geography of newly discovered planet Gliese 581.

I am afraid science isn't going to stand still, and restrict its areas of study until you are happy that there are no gaps left in our understanding! What is happening is simply splendid for scientific naturalism - it has opened up whole new vistas of areas for exploration. No other process has managed to expand our knowledge in the same way.

I agree with his project, but think that this new epistemology should not be called science, for it seems to me that the concept of science entails objectivity.

It isn't called science. It is called philosophy.

As I said, that's perfectly fine. But what happens in our discussion is significantly different, for it goes like this:

Dianelos: "Some ethical precepts at least are objective � it's obvious".

Steve: "Sorry, no ethical precepts are objective".

Dianelos: "So, where's the evidence for that?" (see my post #85462 above)

Steve: "--"

Tsk. Epeeist has told you off about this before. You are the one claiming something positively exists, not me. I want evidence for your positive assertion that ethical precepts are objective. You are asserting the existence of something. Prove it. Lots of people believed in the past that it was obvious that fairies existed.

It's an appeal to numbers for justifying that a belief is "huge" not that a belief is "true". Perhaps you wish retract your claim that I believe that something is true because many people believe in it.

Nope, sorry.

Steve it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with somebody who consistently misreads what one writes

I know the feeling.

"true" is different from "huge"

You were attempting to back up a claim by stating that it was 'obvious' to a large number of people. That was supposed to be some kind of evidence.

669. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86147 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 9:18 am

DG's tagged on theism is completely useless for ethics as it is for the laws of physics. It is like "ether" in 19th century physics.

Neat analogy.

670. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86136 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 8:23 am

Wrong again, Steve99. Chomsky has often said that the USA is the greatest country in the world, and praises its free open society, libel laws, parts of the constitution, etc.

I should have been clearer. Chomsky is anti-american-foreign-policy.

To criticise one party in a dispute doesn't immediately imply you think the other party is guiltless. Both can be condemned. Surely, it's not that cognitively complex for you to grasp that the world is not always neatly dichotomous.

That is precisely my point.

The whole issue of the Serb massacre was dealt with when the Guardian had to withdraw and apologise for its assertions in 2005/2006. That's an old hat - try again. And try and be honest this time.

Yes, honesty is indeed required. Where did you see me mention The Guardian? I was quoting from reports at the time, and from Chomsky's book. This issue was raised in a Guardian interview, and was the subject of intense controversy, especially over the issue of the apology, which was itself condemned.

You can't just dimiss Chomsky's views and words with the phrase "old hat".

671. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86127 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 7:55 am

That's one of the reasons so many people can't even comprehend what Chomsky is saying because he constantly explodes this myth of a free press.

People understand him all too well when he tries to deny massacres by his left-wing friends.

672. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86117 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 7:21 am

If you can point me in the direction of "respected journalists" then I will certainly take a look at their articles, however there are many "respected journalists" out there who are merely corporate servants to power.

Ah. How convenient. So, whomever I point you at, you can claim they are "merely corporate servants to power"...

neat.

673. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86114 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 7:17 am

I mean actual words or sentiments Chomsky himself has uttered when matched against other sentiments one is able to parse dishonesty.

OK, let's take Chomsky's denials of massacres by the Serbs.

From a report at the time:

"Bosnian Serb forces overran the UN-designated "safe zone" of Srebrenica in July 1995 and killed more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys, the worst slaughter of civilians in Europe since the second world war."

In his book "The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo", Chomsky claims that the 'violent expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Serbs from Krajina' is 'acknowledged to be the most extreme single case of ethnic cleansing in the horrendous wars of secession in Yugoslavia'. Of course, this is nonsense, as it was nowhere near as bad as the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in eastern Bosnia, but Chomsky could not acknowledge that, as it was done by his beloved Serbs.

The thing is, Chomsky is a man of faith. He has faith in anti-americanism. When you have deep faith, you try not to let inconvenient facts get in the way.... you ignore or deny them.

674. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86113 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

I don't mean referring me to articles by right wing loons who hate Chomsky merely because he criticises the United States.

I don't think you are going to look very sensible calling respected journalists like Francis Wheen and Nick Cohen 'right wing loons'.

To equate US Foreign Policy, which Chomsky has spent most of his life researching and criticising, is a bit like equating Simon Wiesenthal and the Nazis he spent decades hunting.

And I think equating the US with the Nazis gives us a clearer idea of where you are coming from.

675. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86103 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 6:41 am

In any case I've come down with the flu and have a splitting headache.

Take care of yourself. There have been some nasty cold/flu bugs around here in the UK....

676. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86101 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 6:32 am

You're right, all of Chomsky's critics do indeed love America.

I may have detected irony, but it is worth pointing out to some here that this is plainly not the case. Francis Wheen has been mentioned in this context. He has written scathing articles about the USA and its politics. Many of Chomsky's critics are simply after intellectual honesty and consistency, and find both Chomsky and USA foreign policy sadly lacking in these attributes.

677. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86086 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 5:16 am

So, similarly, unless a scientific naturalist can come up with a valid reason (i.e. one which does not presuppose the truth of scientific naturalism) why no objective morality exists then it's perfectly reasonable for all non-naturalists to believe that at least some ethical precepts are objective, as is indeed overwhelmingly obvious to any non-psychopath.

No, it is not obvious. What non-psychopaths have is inner feelings that guide their actions. The fact that different people (such as psychopaths) don't have such feelings is clear evidence that these things are not objective and universal.

So, where's the extraordinary evidence that would move me to change my belief that this ethical precept is objective?

The existence of psychopaths.

What you are saying here is equivalent to: "People in love know what love feels like, so the existence of objective love is overwhelmingly obvious". Morality is a mental process, like emotion. There is no 'absolute objective morality' any more than there is 'absolute objective love'.

678. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86082 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 5:03 am

Or Steve99 practicly assuming that ADH automaticly makes anythin Martin Luther says, his own opinion.

It's kinda like responding to the statement "Italy is not a warmongering nation." with;

Let me quote Benito Musolini:

"War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and imposes the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to make it."

No, it isn't like that at all. The problem is that much religious reasoning seems to be about trying to re-define words to make things fit. Faith becomes compatible with logic because they declare it so.

I quoted Martin Luther to show that there isn't even a consistent religious view on this.

679. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #86067 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 3:52 am

Also, contrary to what most people think, there is no reason to believe that consciousness itself is produced by the brain

So let me try and understand this convoluted argument. If someone knocks me out with a baseball bat, it isn't really my brain losing consciousness, it is something that might be simulating my brain (and presumably, simulating the baseball bat) working out that I lose consciousness.... woah! Kind of like... the Matrix!!!

680. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86065 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 3:40 am

You also dare to deliver a harangue against Chomsky's morality..

There are plenty of people who do the same.

Here, for example is the historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet:

"The simple truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for my death or that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy is a comrade, or a 'relatively apolitical sort of liberal'. You did not have the right to take a falsifier of history and to recast him in the colours of truth".

681. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85963 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm

By the way Steve, you describe yourself as an ex-Christian

No, I don't 'describe' myself as this. It is on record.

and somehow you seem to feel that that has given you a unique understanding.

No. It gives me a personal understanding for the what you feel.

Ex-Christians can be so pompous: "been there, done that got the T-shirt ... and I've seen through it all". Do you entitle ex-atheists to the same insight? You will say, of course, that they were not "true atheists". So how do we know that you were really a Christian Lots of people jump on the Christian gravy train for a while until it ceases to serve their purposes - until they "see it for what it is" I suppose is how you would phrase it. I can't help wondering which is the case, whatever yopur protestations.

I did 'jump on the Christian gravy train" as you say it. I helped me through my adolescence, trying to come to terms with what life meant. But even then, I realised how flawed it was. I went to college, as a Christian, but was thrown out of the Christian groups for asking too many questions, and soon after I realised that Christianity was a fraud, like the rest of religion. I wanted to study science, and religion tried to stop me thinking of new ideas. As I progressed through college, I realised that religion was simply irrelevant to anything I was interested in, in any area of science. It has been a long awakening.

I am afraid all I see in your responses is desparation, but I understand that, and have some sympathy. The problem is that it is neither practical or dignified to live life in a state of delusion. This is all the life we have, and it is therefore infinitely precious. I have lost many friends and members of family in recent years, and the loss is terrible, but I am mature enough not to try to delude myself that their absence is temporary. That is religion acting as Prozac.

682. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85948 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Perhaps this would fail but it potential would test my view that christians are being unpermissably vague referring to their religious experiences in terms of personal relationship.

As an ex-christian, I think I can say with confidence that Christians ARE being unpermissably vague in this area.

683. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85946 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 2:46 pm

On the issue of eternal separation from God, well it is actually what atheists want, is it not?

I used to be a believer. But, like with santa Claus, I grew out of it. What I really desperately want is for supposely intelligent people to stop deluding themselves and lying about imaginary friends. And that includes you. You have no reason at all to believe in God. You really don't have a relationship with God - if you are truly honest, all you have a relationship with is your own feelings. No matter how much you really the existence of God to be true, it isn't, is it?

All us atheists want is for people like you to grow up and be honest. Because while you don't, the world is in danger from people who will exploit your wishful thinking.

684. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85938 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Chomsky's premise is simple - all governments are responsible for their actions, and all are to be judged by the same standards.

Unfortunately, Chomssky's actual words don't live up to this premise.

685. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85866 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 11:10 am

In a sense there is nothing new, Chomsky has been consistently making the same point for half a century. It is also not a very revolutionary idea for those of us who have some experience in the world outside the U.S. and its allies.

It may not be a very revolutionary idea, but I am afraid it has a bad smell to it. He is happy to criticise the West for a double standard, but will also look the other way, and give the benefit of the doubt to those who criticise anti-Western governments. He is part of a group of left-wingers who do this regularly - including John Pilger, George Galloway. I am left-wing, but I believe the same standards should be applied to all.

686. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85853 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 10:26 am

Chomsky never condoned the actions of Pol Pot

Perhaps not, but he was prepared to look the other way and pretend that no atrocities happened in case it tarnished the reputation of another communist regime. This is a matter of public record.

687. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85848 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 10:17 am

When did Chomsky support Pol Pot?

Indirectly, in his criticism of Francois Ponchaud's book "Cambodia: Year Zero". He accused it of having an 'anti-communist bias and message'. His views on this matter were distinctly dodgy.

688. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85845 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 10:12 am

I agree he can take the love of the underdog a little far, but I don't see how anyone can seriously doubt the underlying morality, or his belief in an underlying moral instinct he champions against those who would subvert that instinct for various economic or political purposes.

I don't doubt that, but he has been somewhat less than rigorous about facts in these matters.

689. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85793 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 5:59 am

Khiyal; There are only two conclusions I can make from your statements regarding Chomsky. You are either deliberately lying or woefully ignorant. You are essentially repeating old propaganda speeches put out by the crazy right.

Sorry, but I have to back Khiyal in this. Francis Wheen is a widely respected left-wing journalist and writer. To find a seriously devastating critique of Chomsky, read Nick Cohen's 'What's Left?'. Cohen is also a lifelong liberal. I am socialist, and I find Chomsky an embarassment.

690. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85785 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 5:28 am

In no way is faith a rejection of logic.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with this:

Let me quote Martin Luther:

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

691. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85768 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 3:38 am

I persist in what?

Claiming that what you personally consider absurd or obvious are any kind of measure of what is false and true. It is damn stupid. Sorry to be blunt, but it really is.

Scientific naturalism is so full of paradoxes and holes that even atheist philosophers are deserting it

No, let's get this right. You personally want and believe that it is full of holes, so you can (using crazy logic) automatically justify that a cosy supernatural world you are desperate to believe.

so why exactly should I care to renounce beliefs I find completely obvious just in order to maintain the viability of an ontology that even knowledgeable atheists think is wrong?

Firstly, "atheists philosophers" aren't deserting it. Such a general statement is clearly rubbish. Daniel Dennett is an atheist philosopher, and he is not deserting scientific naturalism. David Chalmers is an atheistic philosopher and he is not deserting scientific naturalism. Just because you can find some who are, does not mean this is general.

Yes, I see the parallel. Those who first realized that the Earth, contrary to what appeared obvious, is not flat had to show the evidence why the Earth is round. So in our parallel case it's you who are claiming the non-obvious, so it's you who have to give evidence why morality is not objective. But you haven't given any such evidence. Nobody has, beyond pointing out that that's what is required if you believe in scientific naturalism.

No, you are missing the point. It is that obviousness is no guide to what is true. Having seen the example that obviousness was wrong in the past (flat earth), a rational person would then see that it is no guide to anything, and give up using 'obviousness' as any justification, realising it was silly. You don't give up, do you?

Let's imagine someone, call them Danny, who starts off with the idea that what is obvious is a guide to what is true:

Danny: "The Earth is flat - obvious"

Geographer: "Sorry round - here is the evidence"

Danny: "Oops, I was wrong! It was obvious but false."

Danny: "Time and space are absolute - obvious"

Physicist: "Sorry, they aren't - here is the evidence"

Danny: "Oops, I was wrong! It was obvious but false."

Danny: "Subatomic particles must be found in one place, and act like billiard balls - obvious"

Physicist: "Sorry, they aren't - here is the evidence"

Danny: "Oops, I was wrong! It was obvious but false."

Danny: "Life must have been created, it is so complex - obvious"

Biologist: "Sorry, it evolved - here is the evidence"

Danny: "Oops, I was wrong! It was obvious but false."

I mean, this Danny guy just won't learn will he? If one bumped into him and he said "There can't be a multiverse - it is obvious", then surely any reasonable person would point out to him that the track record of "It is obvious" is pretty poor. If he persisted, he would be guilty of the "don't be silly" fallacy, surely.

I never claimed that something is true because so many people believe in it, and I defy you to find one quote of mine which says that, or can be construed as saying that.

Here you go:

"To claim that no objective morality exists, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody, is the huge claim."

That is an appeal to numbers.

I too believe in an objective world, and I am surprised you write that only "most" modern physicists believe in it. Can you tell me of one modern physicist who does not believe in an objective reality?

I can't. But unlike you, I try not to generalise. I mean, it would be poor to say "All" modern physicists believe something, wouldn't it?

But hold on a minute. Didn't you mention someone? Ah yes - Nick Herbert.

As for Einstein, some of his most deeply felt beliefs about how the objective reality is have been proven wrong by experiment.

Actually no - almost all of them have been proven right, and to a high precision. It is only in the quantum area he was wrong.

Physicists have been so often and so radically wrong in their ontological beliefs, that the remnant of a physical objective reality that is still viable is like that thing that was found not to look like a duck, not to walk like a duck, and not to quack like a duck, but which "scientific duckists" insist is nevertheless a duck.

Gosh, you are getting desperate here. All those deluded physicists, but Dianelos knows better!

A physical reality that is created by our consciousness can hardly be called objective it seems to me.

Of course it can, providing it is the same reality for all of us. This is an idea often expressed by John Wheeler.

Give it a rest Dianelos. We have been through all of this before. I am only replying here as there is no 'previous responses' facility on the website.

You keep trying to turn wishful thinking into reasoned argument, and it just won't work - it is too obvious a ploy for one thing.

I have had enough of this (again!) for now. Enjoy pressing your reset button :)

692. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85755 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 2:39 am

[God] lays down numerous often primitive and arbitrary moral and ceremonial laws, then gets involved in inner tribal politics and land disputes, inciting acts of brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape along the way.

In fact do you really think you would find one Christian who would agree with what you write above?

Well, Mormons believe something pretty close - just look up the history of the Lamanites and the Nephites. And you really have to read some of what Jerry Falwell wrote.

And we have our dear old Bishop of Glasgow claiming that God was directly interfering with our land in the UK, flooding us because of pro-gay legislation.

Some of you theists are either naive, or just plain in denial about what people really believe.

693. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85748 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 am

And, arguably, nobody has written a more splendid moral code than Christian ethics as recorded in the Gospels two thousand years ago

A serious suggestion - take a look at the ethics of Buddhism. You will find just about all the good bits of what Jesus said, but with what I consider some important changes: far more pragmatism, less dogma (no historical Old Testament baggage that Jesus was ambiguous about changing) and no need for a God to back it all up.

Take a look - what harm can it do? I think you will be pleasantly surprised, and it might lessen your focus on Christianity.

No matter what your belief in the supernatural, and I am not a Buddhist myself, what was written centuries before Christ was far more elegant, more practical, and more respectful of human nature - certainly more splendid in my view.

694. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85743 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 1:30 am

I think the right way to think about ethics is this: Objective reality is at its most fundamental perfectly good, and we, who are part of objective reality, live in an experiential environment which contains a pointer towards that perfect goodness.

Well folks, this is anther golden oldie as we say in the UK. Of course, it is nonsense as I can make two equivalent statements:

Number one:

"I think the right way to think about ethics is this: Objective reality is at its most fundamental perfectly evil, and we, who are part of objective reality, live in an experiential environment which contains a pointer towards that perfect evil."

There is nothing to indicate to anyone that this statement is any less true or false that that of Dianelos. I mean, someone deciding between Dianelosity and Satanism can't have a 'universal morality meter' to find out which one is true.

Actually, I think either perfect goodness or perfect evil are just so unlikely. This suggests far too much fine-tuning of the supernatural. So, I propose an alternative:

This is my favourite, as it actually matches reality far more accurately: I shall call it the Catherine Tate principle, from an English comediene who has a catch phrase "I can't be bothered":

"I think the right way to think about ethics is this: Objective reality is at its most fundamental perfectly apathetic, and we, who are part of objective reality, live in an experiential environment which contains a pointer towards that perfect apathy."

Considering our experience of the world, my second statement matches things FAR more accurately than the Dianelos principle, don't you think, people?

Hey - I have an idea. If I can get enough people to believe that MY favourite statement is correct, then according to the principles of Dianelosity, it then automatically becomes true!

695. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85638 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 2:45 pm

I have to say that my faith is real. God is for me the foundation of everything that is. Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him.

Sorry, but I have to ask... with who? Have you heard him speak, seen him? I am just so fascinated by people with this opinion that I would love to get an answer. Remember - to show that someone is actually there, you need evidence of some kind, not faith or vague feelings.

696. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85558 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 6:59 am

In sum: Dianelos' subjectivity is actually objective reality. He smells a bad smell, we all smell it. He dislikes a movie, we all dislike it. Unless we're being bloody minded or daft, of course.

And, to summarise a theme of hundreds of past posts, this is where Dianelosity fails so badly. It presents arguments which are supposed to question physical objective reality, but they actually question virtually all objective reality. There are only two realities that could survive: perfect determinism (which is rejected by Dianelosity because lack of free will is 'absurd') and some sort of magic reality where God has to keep stepping in oodles of times each nanosecond and just about everywhere to deal with all those confusing quantum problems and stuff.

Dianelos keeps showing us these big philosophical guns that can shoot holes in naturalism, and then he goes and shoots himself in the foot (as the aim is not that accurate), but bites his lip and in a pained voice declares that it did not hurt.

697. The truth in religion

Comment #85552 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 6:29 am

Also, what bibliography would you (or anyone else reading this) suggest as a primer for a nonspecialist on early-universe cosmology, multiverse models, and the like? My recent (well, going on 10+ years now) science reeducation has been mainly in biology, not physics.

Oops yes! That sentence was not complete.

Personally, I can't really suggest a primer. Others may do better than I. I can mention some ideas you might want to look up. The Hawking-Hartle model, and Gott and Li's time loop idea. These are very speculative, but show that what seems common sense to us may not apply.

698. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85513 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 3:38 am

Now, again, an atheist may claim that that's how reality is, and if we don't like it then too bad. But the point is that atheism's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous worldview.

Pressed the reset button yet again? How tiresome.

It is better to be uncertain about morality and negotiate what is right and wrong with others than to assume divine guidance, when you have no no way to be sure what that guidance is, or how to recognise it (and no, what you feel to be right won't work for this, as it is dangerous if you are a psychopath).

Atheist: "I am not sure, I will talk it over, and come to some kind of agreement with others."

Theist 1: "I find bits of holy books that back up my feelings, therefore those feelings are not only right, but holy, and damn those who question them."

Theist 2: "I kind of want there to be absolute right and wrong, and for reasons I can't explain, the existence of an invisible and undetectable intelligence makes this the case. Even though I can't detect this intelligence, and have no way of knowing its mind, I will just assume that what I feel, deep down, is right."

By all possible standards of decency, the first approach is the more honest, and the more moral one. The last one is just plain nuts - loopiness wrapped up in philosophy.

699. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85495 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 2:51 am

I have to say that I would have found D'Souza's really article hard to respond to, not because I would have nothing to say, but because there is just so much fallacious bollocks in it that it is hard to know where to start.

This is actually quite a problem with some theist articles. They are so way off reality, I find it takes quite a change in mental gear to even take in what they are saying, let alone respond.

700. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85490 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 2:28 am