”I remember a conversation I had with a broadcast news executive many years ago.
“Doesn’t the fact that 90 percent of your people are Democrats affect your work product?” I asked.
“Oh, no, no,” he said. “Our people are professional. They have standards of objectivity and professionalism, so that their own views don’t affect the news.”
“So what you’re saying,” I said, “is that your work product would be identical if 90 percent of your people were Republicans.”
He quickly replied, “No, then it would be biased.”
Michael Barone, via Lukehandcool at legalinsurrection.com]
“I have been closely acquainted with newsroom cultures for more than 30 years, and I recognize the attitude. Only liberals can see the world clearly. Conservatives are prevented by their warped and ungenerous views from recognizing the world as it is. “
Lukehandcool commenting at legalinsurrection.com
”Politico.com reports that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asked for the probe after a "defiant Wu" said he wouldn't resign. Which raises the obvious question: Why wasn't Pelosi able to persuade Wu to leave?
Well, she's a married woman, and at 71 she's a little old to be pitching Wu.”
James Taranto, WSJ
”The dominant tone among American intellectuals – Puritans without God by and large – is as deterministically Calvinist as any New England divine would have wished. The New England Calvinists believed that everything that happened had been planned and predestined by God from eternity. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century American progressive intellectuals threw God under the bus, but kept the machine. The universe is a closed system, every effect is related logically and inevitably to a cause, and with a sufficient amount of knowledge and enough computing power, the future of anything can be predicted. To this they grafted American optimism: the belief based on our national historical experience that things get better over time.
Walter Russell Mead
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Quotes of the Day 07.26.11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Atheism has a morality far more inclusive and advanced than any theology. The arguments for being 'religious' get weaker by the day, hence the increased hate from theists I think. I wrote a bit more about it today - http://wp.me/p1u5Um-9T - and hope it helps someone make their own case for why Atheism is the more rational choice.
Atheism has absolutely no morality attached to it at all. Any morality that an Atheist declares comes from someone's own mind, usually his own, and is a made-to-fit system of behaviors that describes the Atheist's own predilections. Since Atheism rejects the only objective source for morality, the Atheist's own system is ipso facto subjective, and therefore not binding. And by being not binding, one might say that it is all inclusive, because it is, of course, relative and thus not discriminatory, being just exactly whatever each person wants for his own behavior.
So Atheism is incapable of providing a binding morality, one which discriminates a known Good from a known Bad, because neither of those can exist in a subjective, non-binding, non-discriminatory system.
Any claim of an Atheist moral system is really a description of behaviors that one individual has a personal affinity for, and nothing more.
Even if a large group of Atheists adopt this particular system of behaviors, it is still not a system of morality, it is a system of preferences which a group of people like.
Even the term "morality" implies a discrimination: it discriminates against immorality. Thus it cannot be "inclusive" because it excludes those behaviors that are deemed "immoral".
If there are no behaviors that are immoral, then "morality" describes all behaviors and thus has no meaning, because it is made synonymous with "all behaviors".
There is no out for the Atheist. There are no morals attached to the rejection of a First Cause, and there cannot be morals without a consistent, universal, objective declaration of the characteristics of "moral" and "immoral", "Good" and "Evil". Otherwise the declaration of morality has no meaning.
CLS,
Now I have gone to your blog and I see that you are a Philosophical Materialist, promoting the basic Category Error that evidence must be physical in order to be believed. While you didn't say that, the implication is strong. Since there is no hair of God to do a DNA analysis on, there is no evidence. So the non-Atheist is a Blind Believer, with no material evidence. (We can discuss this in detail if you wish).
These beliefs are not congruent with basic logic. First of all, there is no ability within the material realm to prove that there is no non-material realm. So materialism as a philosophy is illogical. And the requirement for material evidence is also illogical.
Next, it is decidedly possible to rationally conclude that it is probable that a rationally assembled universe which contains rational creatures suggests a rational beginning with a rational cause.
Now, Atheism does in fact exclude an Atheist from being moral, even though he behaves within the cultural norms: Atheism provides no guidance that requires him to do so. So the pretense of morality is false because the behavior is culturally driven, not principle driven. Atheism provides no principles for moral behavior. It is wholly acceptable within Atheism for a person to slide from one morality definition to another every moment, if he so chooses.
Stealing the moral principles of another moral system is not a moral behavior, it is just theft.
Atheism certainly is allowed to explore altered states, etc. That is not morality.
Atheism is definitely not identical to rationality, because it is based on a Category Error, and it maintains false images of non-Atheists, such as that they are engaged in blind belief. (We can discuss this error in detail if you wish).
And to declare that Atheism has no dogmatism (some of which you use in that same paragraph) is false. And Atheism decidedly does have a political arm of secularists and humanists which engage in turning the government into their favorite dogma: secularism and humanism (We can talk about this in more detail if you wish,also).
Yes, some, not all, Atheists are humanistic, which is a religion in and of itself, even legally so established. The First Humanist Manifesto declared humanism to be a religion; the subsequent Humanist Manifestos obscured all their principles with high sounding but hazy, clouded principles. But the religious characteristics and aspects remain.
As far as Critical Thinking goes, I have yet to find an Atheist who can use syllogistic argumentation to support his Atheist views with grounded logic. Atheists seem to think that Critical Thinking means being critical of everything that comes along - hence, the cult of Skepticism. Critical Thinking is actually the process of separating the true from the false using grounded logic, frequently in syllogistic form. Atheism, as a philosophy, provides no discrimination between True from False, Good from Evil. (We can discuss this in detail if you wish).
And finally, Skepticism contributes no new knowledge whatsoever, and neither does Atheism. Both of these cults merely deny without evidence in support of their denial, and claim that they need no evidence to support their own claims. (We can discuss this in detail if you wish).
It is not logically or rationally possible to declare Atheism logical or rational. Sam Harris has found that the science and Skeptic communities, ostensibly his compatriots in Atheism, are vocal in dismissing his ideas as outrageously irrational. That is one concept within Atheism that I can agree with.
Atheist "morality" sounds a bit like a game of Calvinball - the rules are whatever the person playing the game decides they are, while playing.
You'll have to elaborate on morals and absolutes and objectivity. I don't see how the morality of an agent's action can in any definition of the word, be objective.
Morality is situational and the concept of morality exist in minds. If no minds existed then there would be no moral actions.
Man is a social animal and morals are the ideas that have been found to work in creating a functioning society. You could call them large-scale agreements between agents. Morals change over time. A past society may think it ethical to own slaves, for example. We (should) no longer think it ethical to own slaves.
So Atheism is incapable of providing a binding morality...
This is like saying knitting doesn't provide morality. You've doubtless heard this before but atheism is just lack of belief in gods.
Any claim of an Atheist moral system is really a description of behaviors...
There is no "atheist moral system", there are atheists with morals. In the "descriptive ethics" sense of the word - morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in a human society.
If there are no behaviors that are immoral...
Nihilists might believe that...
There are no morals attached to the rejection of a First Cause
"First Cause" with capital letters? I'm guessing you just don't want to type YWHW or whatever you call your god.
It is wholly acceptable within Atheism for a person to slide from one morality definition to another every moment, if he so chooses.
If the person wants to live in society, it may not be as acceptable as you think.
Stealing the moral principles of another moral system is not a moral behavior, it is just theft.
If the other moral system still has moral principles, how can they be stolen? One ideas are shared like a flame from one candle to the next. Share and there are two flames!
"evidence must be physical in order to be believed. While you didn't say that, the implication is strong."
If you are arguing that your god has never had or will never have an effect on the physical or material realm then maybe you could claim that there will never be any material evidence. But people who believe in gods don't often claim this.
At least you acknowledge that he never said that.
Next, it is decidedly possible to rationally conclude that it is probable that a rationally assembled universe...
"rationally assembled"? Here's where I have to stop you and use Latin phrases. petitio principii.
As far as Critical Thinking goes, I have yet to find an Atheist who can use syllogistic argumentation to support his Atheist views with grounded logic.
Why would he need to? Atheism is the default position. A person is born. They might be told of Krishna but find the arguments for Krishna's existence unconvincing.
If they find the arguments for all the gods to be unconvincing then they are atheists.
The person making the positive claim is the person who has the burden of proof. Reality isn't like a debate where the burden switches back and forth.
KK, a quick question on definitions.
Your basic description of atheism is simply "just lack of belief in God/s"
I was wondering how do you distinguish between an atheist and agnostic?
Or would you say that they refer to different matters?
petitio principii? Hardly. If the universe is interperable using rational techniques, then the universe itself is a rational structure.
“Atheism is the default position”. And so is total ignorance of any and everything the default position. This argument is too simplistic to be used in any intelligent manner. Ignorance of the backside of the moon shouldn’t lead one to believe that there is none, and ignorance of the metaphysics of the intellect, higher mathematics, logic and rational thought shouldn’t mean that there is none.
When one asserts the negation of an assertion, one has the intellectual obligation to support his claim with proof that his negation is true for all possible conditions and all possible worlds – that is the general requirement made by Atheists on their opponents. It is intellectual dishonesty and cowardice to make an assertion but not support it. And it is total dishonesty to claim that the Atheist has not rejected god or gods, because to make the claim of “no god belief” after hearing the god hypothesis involves specifically rejecting the hypothesis; there is no intellectually honest way around this. The new definition has been developed specifically because the Atheist cannot prove his belief system, which is then revealed to be a religiously believed dogma.
Rational debate involves the Burden of Rebuttal as well as the Burden of original proof. You can deny this but the denial is a hollow excuse to avoid the intellectual responsibility. You can't avoid the overwhelming appearance of rational weakness and intellectual shabbiness by using this argument.
” Morality is situational and the concept of morality exist in minds. If no minds existed then there would be no moral actions.”
This is why Atheism is dangerous to humanity. The Atheist is free to do what ever he wants within a given situation and then call it moral. It’s been done to death. Literally.
(continued)
(Continued)
” Man is a social animal and morals are the ideas that have been found to work in creating a functioning society.”
This is typical evolutionary historical story manufacturing: stories made up to match the wishes of the story teller. You have no evidence of this, none; it is something you wish to believe, in the absence of any objective morality.
” This is like saying knitting doesn't provide morality.”
Yes, exactly. There is no morality attached to Atheism. So any morality which an Atheist claims to have came from something other than Atheism. Either he made his morals up himself, or he stole them from someone else.
You've doubtless heard this before but atheism is just lack of belief in gods.
Yes and it is false.
” There is no "atheist moral system", there are atheists with morals. In the "descriptive ethics" sense of the word - morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in a human society.”
As stated above, there is no morality attached to Atheism. So any morality which an Atheist claims to have came from something other than Atheism. Either he made his morals up himself, or he stole them from someone else.
And there is no reason to accept “descriptive ethics” over any other ethic, including Consequentialism and / or Virtue Ethics. And there is no reason not to switch out of these ethics whenever it is convenient to the Atheist. Nietzsche’s Anti-Rational Will To Power works for some Atheists.
” If the other moral system still has moral principles, how can they be stolen? One ideas are shared like a flame from one candle to the next. Share and there are two flames!’
Stealing an identity is theft. Stealing a morality that doesn’t actually belong to your worldview is theft. It is masquerading as someone who you aren’t, because you do not believe in the source of the principles you have stolen, and it is the source that gives the principles their authority. For you, those principles are behavior conveniences without any real authority for guiding your personal development.
Atheist principles are subjective, floating and ephemeral, with no possibility of any authority underlying their existence.
"I was wondering how do you distinguish between an atheist and agnostic?"
Chris, nostic refers to knowledge, theist refers to belief.
"When one asserts the negation of an assertion, one has the intellectual obligation to support his claim with proof that his negation is true for all possible conditions and all possible worlds"
The schoolyard taunt of "prove me wrong!"
"petitio principii?"
Stan, you assumed your own conclusion and used that assumed conclusion in your argument. That's Ray Confort style logic "The Creator exists because Creation has a Creator". That's what petito principii is.
What are these objective morals? Name them?
Who is your God? Name him?
Let's examine them.
Triple A
"Gnostic refers to knowledge, theist refers to belief".
I was always under the impression that an agnostic is someone who is not certain about his/her belief on the question of God.
Question: Do you believe there is a God?
Agnostic Answer: I don't know.
Atheist Answer: No
Theist Answer: Yes
from Greek: gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge
from Greek: theos, god(s) + -ism, belief(s)
This is my favourite part:
Stan said: "When one asserts the negation of an assertion, one has the intellectual obligation to support his claim with proof that his negation is true for all possible conditions and all possible worlds"
Oh fantastic! Hold Stan to this statement. Now anyone can make any assertion and assume it's true unless Stan can prove it false. And for 'all possible conditions and all possible worlds'! And even if Stan could prove your assertions false, change the conditions. They don't have to be true; they just have to be possible!
"Stan, you assumed your own conclusion and used that assumed conclusion in your argument. That's Ray Confort style logic "The Creator exists because Creation has a Creator". That's what petito principii is."
You are still talking generalities. Here is the specific actuality:
If the universe is NOT assembled in a rational fashion, then no amount of rational or empirical analysis could describe or comprehend it. If you deny that the universe is understandable as a rational entity, then you have taken a step toward solipsism.
The idea that the universe is a rational assembly of mass/energy and space/time is not an off-the wall-assumption, it is an empirical observation with enough confirmation that it is now a presupposition for empirical scientific discovery.
It does not presume a God. God is presumed by observing it and placing it into syllogistic form.
Principle of enlightenment:
the universe is understandable by man; it is consistent and orderly and behaves according to logical principles.
Empirical Principle of Cause and Effect:
Every effect has a cause which is equal or greater than the effect, is necessary and sufficient to produce the effect, and exists in order to produce the effect.
Corollary: The cause will contain more complexity and order than the effect, which tends toward disorder. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
Modus Ponens:
X = effect;
Y = cause;
If X Then Y
X
Therefore Y
X contains some of the characteristics of Y;
Y contains all of the characteristics of X.
In other words, X is a subset of Y.
Now let X = effect; a set containing rationality;
And let Y = cause: the creating force for the set containing rationality, also containing rationality.
To test this using Reductio Ad Absurdem, we negate the consequent:
Again X = effect
And Y = cause.
If X, then Y;
~Y
Therefore, X.
This is the Atheist's claim that
X and ~Y. But it also says that there is an effect with no cause in existence. And that is a violation of the Principle of Cause and Effect.
The principle of Cause and Effect is dear to the Atheists who declare that principle to be the reason for denying any metaphysical influence in evolution, for example. A cause will be found for every effect. So to deny Cause and Effect is a big step.
This shows that Ponens is correct. The effect cannot exist without the cause under standard logic.
The belief that either there was no cause for the universe, or that the cause did not contain more than the all the components of the effect, or the cause was accidental and did not follow the Cause And Effect principle which it generated, these beliefs are not congruent with logic and therefore are not rational beliefs.
Clearly, the effect requires a cause which exists and is greater than effect.
There is no presumption of the validity of conclusion in the premises, because the premises call out the conditions of the propositional relationship which requires stating the proposed relationship in the premise, and that is a requirement, not a defect, in Modus Ponens.
In short, a rationally assembled universe logically demands a rational assembler. Is that enough to justify the belief that there just might be a rational assembler? Or is it more justifiable to believe the Reductio Ad Absurdem to the false syllogism, that there is no cause, or no rational cause?
If you choose the latter, then you choose the anti-rational, emotional path: Atheism.
If the universe is NOT assembled in a rational fashion, then no amount of rational or empirical analysis could describe or comprehend it.
You've based you argument on a non sequitur.
Stan said: "If the universe is NOT assembled in a rational fashion, then no amount of rational or empirical analysis could describe or comprehend it."
Stop. That doesn't follow at all. You've made an error of equivocation by using two slightly different meanings of 'rational'
I was beaten to the punch by the poster named Triple A Rating.
Non sequitur is, of course, Latin for 'it does not follow'.
Triple A said,
"What are these objective morals? Name them?
Who is your God? Name him?
Let's examine them. "
This blog discusses the validity of Atheist assertions. If you assert that there is no objective source for morality, then we can discuss your evidence for that statement, within the boundaries of Philosophical Materialism to which Atheism defaults.
If you wish to disprove some version of a god as a source of objective morals, then go ahead and do so, I'm listening.
Adam said,
"Stan said: "If the universe is NOT assembled in a rational fashion, then no amount of rational or empirical analysis could describe or comprehend it."
Stop. That doesn't follow at all. You've made an error of equivocation by using two slightly different meanings of 'rational'
How do you think the terms differ in their definition? They are same as far as I can tell. A watchmaker with rational characteristics creates a watch with rational characteristics.
Perhaps you think that active vs passive makes a difference, in that the passive watch characteristics are different from the active characteristics of the watchmaker? Yet the relationship is 1:1, with the rational effect (the watch) depending upon the rationality of the watchmaker. (Don't even bother with Dawkins' anti-watchmaker argument).
In other words, the passive effect Q requires the active cause R, which follows the laws of Cause and Effect, or else Q acquired the Passive effect autonomously, and the resemblance to the Cause R is circumstantial, all of which violates the Principle of Cause and Effect. Not to mention never, ever having been empirically observed as a natural process.
If there is equivocation in the above, then be explicit in your charge of fallacy. Otherwise your generic charge cannot be accepted.
Triple A said,
"You've based you argument on a non sequitur."
It is insufficient to make a generic fallacy charge. You must logically and fully demonstrate why Y does not follow X. If you can do so, the statement will be retracted. If you cannot, then the statement stands as written.
You have no basis for concluding the universe was created by an intelligent being just because you can understand part of it.
Concerning evidence; has your god had an effect on natural existence? If so, you should be able to provide natural evidence.
“Atheism is the default position”. And so is total ignorance of any and everything the default position.
Yes. Simplistic and true.
Ignorance of the backside of the moon shouldn’t lead one to believe that there is none,
Nor should ignorance be an excuse to believe the dark side of the moon contains magical supernatural beings. But that is the crux of your argument.
When one asserts the negation of an assertion, one has the intellectual obligation to support his claim with proof that his negation is true for all possible conditions and all possible worlds
Nonsense. There's a reason why the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. Otherwise, you'd have to prove an infinite number of negatives. You can't prove with certainty that something doesn't exist.
And it is total dishonesty to claim that the Atheist has not rejected god or gods,
No atheist has ever rejected a god. They may have examined arguments and found them unconvincing and they do not believe. Rejecting an argument is different that rejecting a god.
the Atheist cannot prove his belief system,
Atheists don't believe in gods. That's it. They don't need to prove anything. I assume you believe in a god. And because you're American then that god is YHWH. By believing in YHWH you expressly DISBELIEVE in thousands of other gods. If intellectually honesty demands one disprove every god to be an atheist, where are your disproofs of every other god?
Have you examined every argument for EVERY god?
This is why Atheism is dangerous to humanity. The Atheist is free to do what ever he wants within a given situation and then call it moral. It’s been done to death. Literally.
Theists have called it moral to kill certain people. History and holy books are rife with examples.
” Man is a social animal and morals are the ideas that have been found to work in creating a functioning society.”
...You have no evidence of this, none; it is something you wish to believe
What part do you dispute?
That man is social?
That morals have be found to create functioning societies?
” This is like saying knitting doesn't provide morality.”
Yes, exactly. There is no morality attached to Atheism. So any morality which an Atheist claims to have came from something other than Atheism. Either he made his morals up himself, or he stole them from someone else.
There is no morality attached to knitting. So any morality which a knitter claims to have came from something other than knitting. Either he made his morals up himself, or he stole them from someone else.
"You've doubtless heard this before but atheism is just lack of belief in gods."
Yes and it is false.
As you said, intellectually honesty demands you prove atheism isn't just a lack of belief in gods. I'll start with the dictionary: "a" means "not" and "theo" means "god" and "ism" means belief. not-god-belief. Now according to your own standards, you must prove me wrong.
Every effect has a cause which is equal or greater than the effect
Tell that to victims of avalanches!
But seriously, you need to define "greater".
Corollary: The cause will contain more complexity and order than the effect, which tends toward disorder. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
First:
"Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000)."
Second:
No.
KK said,
”You have no basis for concluding the universe was created by an intelligent being just because you can understand part of it.”
You are twisting the statements to mean something which you can refute. The assertion is that there is more justification for assuming a cause for the universe, a cause which contains the components found in the universe and is a superset of those components, than to believe that the universe had no cause or popped accidentally into existence with its components intact. Neither of the latter have ever been observed to occur, while the former is a standard observation.
”Nor should ignorance be an excuse to believe the dark side of the moon contains magical supernatural beings. But that is the crux of your argument.”
You have not comprehended the argument. Re-read the above.
”Nonsense. There's a reason why the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. Otherwise, you'd have to prove an infinite number of negatives. You can't prove with certainty that something doesn't exist.”
Let’s repeat your last statement:
” You can't prove with certainty that something doesn't exist”
Exactly. And that is your problem. You claim (to yourself anyway) that there is no First Cause. But you cannot prove it and you must butcher the actual proposition being made in order to make a refutation to an argument not even being made. Then you ridicule it with “magical supernatural beings on the backside of the moon” thinking that ridicule is Reductio Ad Absurdem (it is not).
So here is the proposition again:
The assertion is that there is more justification for assuming a cause for the universe, a cause which contains the components found in the universe and is a superset of those components, than to believe that the universe had no cause or popped accidentally into existence with its components intact. Neither of the latter have ever been observed to occur, while the former is a standard observation.
” No atheist has ever rejected a god.”
This general and all-encompassing statement cannot be proved with evidence. But it is obviously false. Atheists reject the Judeo-Christian God as evil all the time.
” They may have examined arguments and found them unconvincing and they do not believe. Rejecting an argument is different that rejecting a god.”
And that is beside the point, which is that some Atheists do, in fact reject specific deities, most especially the Judeo-Christian deity which has the power to infuriate them.
” Atheists don't believe in gods. That's it.”
No that’s not it. Atheists specifically and assertively make the declaration that there is no God. Read the billboards.
” And because you're American then that god is YHWH”
Fallacy of False Association. I was American when I rejected the deity for 40 years. You presume that there is no valid reason to justify the argument made above. But your assessment is biased by your own belief system.
” By believing in YHWH you expressly DISBELIEVE in thousands of other gods.”
Not so. You appear to have preconceptions of Judeo-Christianity which were developed in Atheist forums where imagination serves as reality.
(continued below)
KK said,
” Every effect has a cause which is equal or greater than the effect
Tell that to victims of avalanches!”
Is not the force of the mass of moving snowbanks equal or greater than the mass of humans in its path? The greater mass of the moving snow has the ability to break the human which has lesser mass, bringing disorder. Your example makes no sense.
” But seriously, you need to define "greater".”
What about it don’t you understand? The third graders I substitute taught for were learning the concepts of “less than”, “equal to”, and “greater than”. It shouldn’t be a difficult concept.
” First:
"Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000)."
Entropy is widely misunderstood. The open system / closed system concept is easily shown to be false. So is the idea that order increases under entropic conditions; the deceptive appearance of order is actually coincident with loss of energy as molecules fall into lower order positions which sometimes correspond with attachment to other molecules forming lattice (crystalline) structures. Crystalline structures are not more ordered, they are lesser energy positions, with energy having been removed as heat. Sorting molecules by differentials in the temperature of crystallization is a use of the entropic action of energy removal from the system, not the creation of order. If order were actually created at any point, then a perpetual motion machine would be achievable. Crystallization is not order, it is just a state of mass which exists at lower temperatures. Crystals cannot disassemble themselves or perform any function that the higher energy molecule can perform such as gaseous movement and obeying Boyle’s law, without the addition of energy. Thus the crystal has less energy and less order. When all energy is removed and the electrons fall into the nucleus, and the nucleus contracts, even less order exists.
Perhaps the word “order” means something else to you and we should redefine our terms to mean:
“the degree of energy contained within a molecule and the relative freedom and capacity to perform as the higher energy molecules perform.”
Entropy declares that every system displays a loss of the above definition.
For more information on entropy, try here:.
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search/label/Entropy
”Second:
No.”
No what? Or maybe just no to everything, the Skeptic’s evidence-free, knee jerk answer to everything non-material?
I failed to answer this point:
KK said,
” Concerning evidence; has your god had an effect on natural existence? If so, you should be able to provide natural evidence.
If the argument for the First Cause of the universe is valid, then the entire universe and everything in it qualifies as evidence. Material and natural evidence at that. The Atheist must successfully refute the argument for the First Cause of the universe before the material evidence offered above can be refuted.
Premise 1:
IF [the universe has a First Cause], THEN [the universe is evidence of the First Cause], BECAUSE [the universe would not have existed except for the First Cause].
Premise 2:
The universe has a First Cause.
Conclusion:
The universe is evidence of the First Cause.
Stan, you seem to be interested in philosophy and logic but have never taken a class with a teacher.
It'd be great if you did. Don't take this the wrong way but smug and wrong is an ugly combination. There's a lot you could learn that could help you stop making such basic errors in logic.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is.
How could I possibly take that wrong? I am ignorant and too stupid to know how ignorant I am. That is your analysis in lieu of an actual logical argument or even a constructive criticism of the logic I offer.
I believe I'll stick with this: make your logical analysis and we'll compare notes.
At second thought, you see no arrogance in your evidence-free, logic-free accusations of my incompetence? When you provide some logic to look at we'll talk; until then leave your Ad Hominems at home, OK?
” You can't prove with certainty that something doesn't exist”
Exactly. And that is your problem. You claim (to yourself anyway) that there is no First Cause.
If "First Cause" is the name of your god then all I can say is I have yet to find a compelling argument for believing in gods. I haven't said anything about causes (no capital letter).
”No atheist has ever rejected a god.”
This general and all-encompassing statement cannot be proved with evidence.
Atheists don't believe in gods - they can not reject them. In the same way, you don't reject Santa Claus. You don't accept the arguments for believing in Santa Claus and you might even reject the concept of Santa Claus but you can't reject him because you don't believe.
(I used Santa Claus because he is something we both share a lack of belief in. I'm not comparing your god to Santa Claus.)
But it is obviously false. Atheists reject the Judeo-Christian God as evil all the time.
No. They find fault with the Judeo-Christian concept of a god. Unless you want to accept YWHW is purely conceptual.
...most especially the Judeo-Christian deity which has the power to infuriate them.
Usually you'll find that most non-theists in this culture are infuriated by the actions of Christians. If you talked to non-theists in another culture, you'd probably find something quite different.
Next non-theists can be infuriated by concepts attributed to the Christian god. This god is said to do things that nowadays are considered morally wrong. If this morally wrong actions are promoted as good, non-theists can be angered.
I have a bias. I admit I have a bias. I grew up and was Christian for more than forty years. I live in a country surrounded by Christians. You speak English so most of the people you talk to grew up in a culture where if a god existed, it was the Christian god by default. There is no reason for this except cultural bias. My workmate believes in a Chinese god, I can't remember its name, but that is her default god.
The Christian god shouldn't be the default god unless there is a reason to make it the default. I should let go of my biases. If I ever find a reason to believe there might be gods, I must not fall into the trap of assuming the god is the Christian god. The choice of a god must be based on reality, not cultural bias.
”By believing in YHWH you expressly DISBELIEVE in thousands of other gods.”
Not so.
You're saying you believe in thousands of gods?
If you don't, according to the standards you want to apply to non-theists, you must provide evidence for the nonexistence of each and every one of these gods. Sorry but this is what you've asked non-theists to do. I don't think a person should have to prove a negative but apparently you do.
"Tell that to victims of avalanches!”
The greater mass of the moving snow has the ability to break the human which has lesser mass, bringing disorder.
You said "Every effect has a cause which is equal or greater than the effect".
According to the Avalanche Center, 90% of avalanches killing more than one human are triggered by a human footfall.
The cause is a human footfall. The effect is tonnes of snow crushing people.
You didn't define "cause" and "effect" so I'm using the dictionary definition. Now greater what? Energy?
Entropy is widely misunderstood.
I don't know what to say. I read what you wrote about entropy. I feel cheated. I feel cheated because I was trying to take what you say seriously. I feel cheated because you are pretending to know more than you do. I could make a snarky comment about how you don't understand entropy but I've just wasted my time taking you seriously. I'm honestly disappointed.
I have to get ready for work.
Did some thinking.
Disregard my last paragraph.
I just saw someone's comment about the Dunning–Kruger effect. You're human. You might not realize that you don't understand. I can't expect you to be knowledgeable about everything... or even anything.
I was just annoyed that you tried to bullshit me instead of saying it wasn't an area you'd studied or even a simple "I don't know".
”Atheists don't believe in gods - they can not reject them. In the same way, you don't reject Santa Claus. You don't accept the arguments for believing in Santa Claus and you might even reject the concept of Santa Claus but you can't reject him because you don't believe.
Your picking at nits changes nothing. Your rejection is active, not passive. You actively reject the idea of gods, therefore you believe that there are no gods.
” (I used Santa Claus because he is something we both share a lack of belief in. I'm not comparing your god to Santa Claus.)”
Thank you. That adds to the congeniality of these discussions, and I appreciated it.
” No. They find fault with the Judeo-Christian concept of a god. Unless you want to accept YWHW is purely conceptual.”
Your “concept” concept fails at this point, if not before. Dawkins specifically excoriates God (of the Old Testament) as evil. He is not talking about the concept. This is common amongst Atheist commenters around the blogosphere.
” Usually you'll find that most non-theists in this culture are infuriated by the actions of Christians.”
By generalizing the statement “…Christians”, you have identified the caricature used by Atheists. Most Christians are infuriated by the actions of certain Christians, as well. You may feel free to use this against me in the future; I admit to attacking both the general concepts used by Atheists (which might be considered a caricature and not indicative of all Atheists, to which I admit), and the specific concepts promoted by segments of Atheism or certain individuals.
” Next non-theists can be infuriated by concepts attributed to the Christian god. This god is said to do things that nowadays are considered morally wrong. If this morally wrong actions are promoted as good, non-theists can be angered.”
Morally wrong by which Atheist standard? Consequentialism should be right in tune with the Old Testament. Virtue ethics should be right in tune with ACTS. And as always, the issue of literal translation of the Bible has no bearing on the concept of the probability of the existence of a First Cause.
” You're saying you believe in thousands of gods?
If you don't, according to the standards you want to apply to non-theists, you must provide evidence for the nonexistence of each and every one of these gods. Sorry but this is what you've asked non-theists to do. I don't think a person should have to prove a negative but apparently you do.”
This is not necessarily my belief, but it is not an impossibility, given the acceptance of the rational evidence for at least one rational, non-material First Cause: If the powerful First Cause is non-material, then there is no reason that this entity could not produce non-material subordinates as well as material subordinates. If this were the case, some of those might have intentionality which conflicts with their less than perfect natures, leading them to pose as gods.
(Note, this is not offered as truth, merely as idle speculation given the need to deal with myriad deity beliefs.)
This leads to the question: how can we know if a certain god-concept (as you refer to them) is either valid, a poseur, or a fiction? My belief is that each concept, taken independently, must conform to the coherent logic which we acquire from observation of the coherent universe. That is my personal standard, not a universal principle. Under that standard, only Judeo-Christianity passes the rationality test. And even that requires that the Bible be understood within the intents of the many writers of the many books, and not dogmatically declared literal English-language incorrigible Truth.
It is not non-coherent, within the probable non-material realm, for other rational constructs to exist. This is not the same as believing in “thousands of gods”, but it is merely an acknowledgement of rational possibilities that cannot be discounted by mere generic denials.
(more below)
” You said "Every effect has a cause which is equal or greater than the effect".
According to the Avalanche Center, 90% of avalanches killing more than one human are triggered by a human footfall.
The cause is a human footfall. The effect is tonnes of snow crushing people.”
Let’s examine this in detail. It is one of the few examples of the “Butterfly Effect”. To be complete in our definition of an avalanche we must include the following factoids:
First, there must be snow.
Second, the snow must be built up to the point of instability of its position on a slope.
Third, a trigger mechanism must exist. This could be more snow which adds weight that pushes the snow pack beyond the point of instability, and into uncontrolled gravitational flow until it finds a more stable position at a lower potential energy. Other triggers might be a cannon blast (used to cause avalanches to prevent danger in ski areas), earthquakes, sonic booms, warmer temperatures, or human footsteps. (I am doubtful that most snow avalanches are triggered by human footfall – there are too many inaccessible mountain regions for footfall triggers to account for that many).
Finally, what we have is a fully loaded system, one that is completely loaded to the exact point of instability, and one that can be triggered by a minute input to the system. The result is the sum of the system load plus the minor loading of the trigger itself. So the avalanche is a very large system gone unstable, which is hazardous to the individual human who is in its way.
The trigger is not the sole cause. The cause is the unstable situation itself. If human footsteps caused avalanches in a 1:1 causal relationship, then every footstep would produce avalanches – which is clearly not the case. Only in conjunction with a fully loaded system could a footstep cause an avalanche.
” You didn't define "cause" and "effect" so I'm using the dictionary definition. Now greater what? Energy?”
Apparently I am no longer clear on your issue here. In the concept of Cause and Effect, the cause is greater than the effect. If the effect is X amount of energy, then more than X amount of energy is required to produce that effect. I don’t know if that answers your question, maybe you can elaborate?
(continued)
”Entropy is widely misunderstood.
I don't know what to say. I read what you wrote about entropy. I feel cheated. I feel cheated because I was trying to take what you say seriously. I feel cheated because you are pretending to know more than you do. I could make a snarky comment about how you don't understand entropy but I've just wasted my time taking you seriously. I'm honestly disappointed.
I have to get ready for work.”
That was taken from textbook and history of science explanations. I did not make it up from thin air. Not sure how you were cheated, you paid nothing for it, and you didn’t refute it.
And you did exactly make the snarky comment which you disguised only transparently in order to make it. Your accusation is accompanied by no evidence; it is without merit.
"I was just annoyed that you tried to bullshit me instead of saying it wasn't an area you'd studied or even a simple "I don't know"."
Still an accusation without evidence or refutation. I'm wondering what it was that you read, was it this:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/06/entropy-conservation-of-energy-order.html
Perhaps you are annoyed by the development of the theory itself being followed by application to the Atheist argument being made by Carl Sagan, which is very commonly used by Atheists as the meaning of entropy. Sagan allowed his ideology to slop over into his science, making for sloppy science. Read Max Planck's comments, several times if necessary. He contradicts Sagan, and he was the one who developed the 2nd Law from the Conservation of Energy Principles in the first place. If you choose Sagan's ideology over the mathematics of Planck, you have left the realm of science and entered the blind belief zone.
If you disagree, you'll need reasons and evidence for your disagreement.
Post a Comment