Thinking Atheist?

News24.com publishes articles which a person apparently can upload directly and without editing. Here is an article which is signed only as "Thinking Atheist", which might lead one to believe that some actual Atheist thought had been produced in defense of their worldview basis. The article is not long, so the revelations contained might be pithy and conveniently logical and thus easily absorbed into a logical philosophy. Let's see.

First we encounter the Many Religions argument, a disappointment. Many Religions is a very basic failure, being based on the fallacy of False Association: that many solutions to a problem are false does not mean that there is no valid, true solution.

This person calls him/herself “thinking”, yet s/he apparently is working inside the Atheist Void, where the authority of fallacy has no meaning. One should actually study how to think first, and then do the thinking properly. Thinking Atheist actually has trouble reconstructing the basic overtures of primary Atheism. It does not matter how many different religions exist on this planet; that fact does not entail a conclusion that “all” are false.

The next example of this is the claim that a large number of galaxies and stars has some bearing on the existence of god. This mistake is made in the attempt to attack generalized theology by attacking some Christian’s concept of being the only one in the universe capable of having a deity – or some such. But that obviously has no bearing on the existence of a creating agent, or on its ability to interface with humans. Attacking ridiculous notions is easy. And that seems to be the thrust of Thinking Atheist.

Says Thinking,

” However, should other intelligent life exist then to me it cuts a hole in the theory that a Christian, Muslim or Hindu god exists because this other form of life could not possible subscribe to it.”

This is patently absurd. What the creating agent might or might not be capable of doing is perfectly not known to “Thinking”, who made up this false factoid out of nothing whatsoever. Further, a creating agent capable of interfacing with humans is not in the least affected by this claim, much less damaged in any manner.

Undaunted, Thinking continues:

” Not to mention the fact that all theists are squabbling over whose god is actually real. Proof of life out there will be proof that our and their religions (should they subscribe to a definitive god) are false.”

This is another completely absurd claim; Thinking has no clue as to what might happen in other galaxies, under the same deity, in different situations. This is abysmal thinking, Thinking.

Thinking forges on:

” Now bear with me because here I’m going to delve into a bit of philosophy. Proof of life out there may disprove a micro explanation of god but not necessarily the idea of a god. To clarify, as an atheist I do not believe in the supernatural. I reject the claim that gods exist. Without religion there would be no atheism. Calling our philosophy a religion is akin to calling not playing golf a hobby or calling being healthy a disease. I have come to the conclusion that since the logical man cannot yet define the answers of our origin.”

Thinking has muddied up his own philosophy by injecting a rejection based on nothing whatsoever. Now that is a typical Atheist move, but it is not a thoughtful move toward a coherent philosophy. Not only does Thinking have no concept of the rules for thinking, but Thinking also does not know what entails a rational philosophy (hint: a reason for thinking a thought is required).

Further, regarding the tired old clichés regarding the analogy of not-golfing with Atheism, those who don’t golf don’t write irrational articles claiming that golf doesn’t exist, and proudly announcing their a-golfism and how they came into that belief.

” Since he still cannot be sure of the stars and the bottoms of our oceans then how is it that religion, to the logical mind, believes that it can do all this with its quasi mystic imperatives and the contradictions scrawled in its ancient and outdated codex’s?”

This view of religion is the warped caricature of the prejudiced, not the view of an objective viewer. Very, very few believe that religious, ecclesiastical writings of men attempting to comprehend a deity which they acknowledge is outside of material comprehension will reveal the secrets of the bottom of the ocean or any other material knowledge regarding the physics or anatomy of the universe. This claim is created merely to be attacked, a straw man if ever there was one.

”We as the human race use good judgement and logic every day of our lives when it comes to survival, we know not to cross the road in traffic, not to stick our fingers where it burns but when it comes to the most important aspect of our lives theists throw caution to the wind and follow with blind faith? Logic be damned. Would you close your eyes whilst driving on the highway because you have faith that you may NOT crash?”

Having rebelled against the authority of religion as a teen, this individual seemingly absorbed none of the meaning which was available to him. The rational arguments of the Thomasians, the arguments from cause, from existence out of nothing, all deductions are ignored as if they do not exist for Thinking, as s/he attacks the false notion of “blind faith”.

In fact, Thinking gives no indication that s/he realizes the limitations of his/her own knowledge base, the Godellian limits of realizable validity of his/her own “philosophy”, such as it is. To this point, well into the article, Thinking has given no actual facts which demand Atheism in response. All that Thinking has done is to attempt to smear certain concepts which s/he attaches to Christianity, with weak digs at Islam and Hinduism.

Where is the “Logic” which Thinking seems to think goes away with theism? There must be some Logic, mustn’t there? ”Logic be damned”, Thinking screeches while attacking theists (and while ignoring their deductive arguments) – so where, exactly, is it, this Atheist Logic? Surely a person calling him/herself "Thinking" would produce some rational deduction which demonstrates clearly that there can be no creating agent?

But (finally) we get to the part of the article where the rationality of Thinking is on public display:

” I believe that the real answers are far beyond our expectations, far more exciting, far more revealing and far less threatening. My logical mind tells me that even the conative [sic] word “god” is subjective and can be extremely misconstrued when you get right down to it. What is god? Christian theists say it’s a bearded madman in the sky who waved a magic wand and in seven days the world was as it is.”

Thinking is now in hostile bullshit mode. Christian theists say no such thing. We all know what Christianity entails, and it is not the b.s. excreted here by “Thinking”. It gets worse, still:

” Do they have the proof? Not yet, only blind faith and therein lies the problem.

Thinking has betrayed his own lack of knowledge, and has made a universal statement which he cannot support, to wit: if proof is found in deduction, then it exists; if proof must be material, then it is a false requirement, the fallacy of Category Error. It appears to me that Thinking has no concept of fallacies, much less a concept of properly formed and grounded deductive proofs.

The idea of god can be open to interpretation…”

Only by those who deny the actual definition of a creating agent. This point is of no value in any argument for Atheism.

”…it can be theorised that he looks like a flying spaghetti monster, it can be theorised that god is pseudonym for pure energy.”

No, actually it cannot be so theorized. The creating agent would have existed outside of mass/energy and space/time, so these are just more bullshit thrown out in order to be shot down: they are Fallacies of False Analogies, and are used as both Straw Men and Red Herrings.

” I cannot accept the narrow minded and unchanging explanations they give me.”

An outright lie; no theist gave him those analogies. Well the part about him “not accepting explanations” is true, but he doesn’t recognize the existence of actual theist arguments and he makes up several phony arguments instead.

”It is true that the idea of god gives comfort to many it gives them hope. But I believe as humanity is nearing that time where we openly look to the evidence that suggests the contrary we will begin to abandon our addiction to the supernatural and face reality. I accept that this life is all I have, it may be too much for the theists to grasp that when their loved ones die, that’s it. No reunion in heaven.”

It is apparently too much to ask for actual evidence or proof of this assertion which is made as a truth statement. While s/he refers to “evidence” in the same paragraph, where is it? Where is the evidence upon which this conclusion is made? Even a deduction, in the absence of empirical data? None. Nothing. There is only the arrogation of evidence, not a shred of actual evidence. Thinking has completely violated any respect for his/her self-appellation as s/he arrogates intellect to him/herself, without any evidence of actual thought.

”I can sympathise with the hope it gives, I respect its place in our history. But I cannot regress to its archaic truths. In history, faith is continuously replaced with knowledge.”

This is Scientism at its most ignorant; science cannot even prove its own integrity by using science. Science cannot prove anything whatsoever about subjects which are non-falsifiable, including assertions which are in regards to non-material subjects. Science worship is the lowest form of religious belief.

The idea that science will ever tell us how we should behave is not merely absurd, it is a perversion of the concept of science itself, and when made as a truth statement - especially a truth statement upon which a worldview depends - it leads to total irrationality in the proponent.

Thinking is both ignorant of rational thought processes and yet arrogant simultaneously. This article is an exercise in post hoc rationalization after having, as an adolescent, rejected the authority of some sort of ecclesiasticism. Thinking up premises to support a prejudiced conclusion is not in any manner a form of “thinking”. It is a form of prejudice. Thinking Atheist has obviously flattered him/herself with the appellation “thinking”, and in the absence of any evidence, displays the characteristics of the blind belief s/he decries. This is internally contradictory, and of course that is irrational.

A Guest Discusses "Love Sausage" and Similar Atheist Works

[Editor's note: this is a guest article by Steven Satak. Orignally an email, I am posting it in it's entirety with his permission. Thanks, Steve.]

I visited a webcomic site yesterday. One of the links addressed something I had never seen before, never even knew existed. It's a 'superhero' from a series called "The Boys".

http://www.comicvine.com/love-sausage/4005-60457/

I was intrigued with this just enough to follow the rabbit down the hole, to abuse a metaphor. I'd read 'The Authority' by Warren Ellis and was fascinated/repelled by the frequent use of homosexual characters, pedophiles and violence, all calculated to shock and titillate at the same time.

Well, come to find out it was a fellow named Garth Ennis, outdoing Ellis at the same game - shocking and titillating by going further and further afield. Everyone who is not a homosexual appears to be a violent homophobe or a rapist. It's like they distilled the very worst humanity has to offer and then gave them superpowers, and then wrote stories about how one group of twisted, damaged supers kills (in more and more creative ways) the others.

Ellis and Ennis, along with Alan Moore, are referred to 'the trinity'. They are also described as 'brilliant', a descriptive I have come to associate specifically with the meaning "a man or woman whose (tactfully) acknowledged arrogance is not only envied, but held to be excused by their being smarter than the rest of us". That this corruption will eventually neutralize those smarts is not usually mentioned, but shorthand is shorthand and I can read between the writing on the wall.

Right. So I followed the rabbit and found myself neck-deep in obscenity (a word I seldom use). It's like the author is giving the finger to every good thing in existence, but especially the God he claims does not exist. In the artificial comic book worlds these guys make up, God either does not exist or He is an asshole (no reason why He's that way, just the author's say-so).

I immediately formed a supposition - that these three are Atheists. I went and checked, and what do you know? They are, and quite vocal about it. Proud, even (imagine that!). Also noted for specifically portraying Theists (but mostly Christians) as either stupid or easily gulled. And at least Ennis appears to take a positive delight in humiliating characters that are apparently defined by their churchgoing habits. As though that were the only thing about them that mattered. In a sense it is, as the character is Ennis's whipping boy/girl, showing all us normal readers just how fucked up we really are despite all that God talk.

That this might also describe them appears not to be an option. Because they say so, of course, and because they are smarter than we are, what they say automatically trumps what we say to the contrary.

(an aside: apparently Garth Ennis encountered someone on 4Chan who expressed an interest in his daughter. Very unforgiving of the pedo interest, he was. Threats left and right. Apparently, it's fine for the comics he makes, but the least suggestion that he himself be forced to live under the same 'realistic' conditions is apparently out of court. As it should be. But the juxtaposition is funny. In his books, normal humans are there simply to be killed or abused.)

A light went on over my head. They contradict themselves - without God everything is permitted and it shows in their work. But they ignore the contradictions. How can they do that? They accuse theists of stupidity with no basis, yet they follow a mechanistic explanation of the world without explaining the built-in contradiction.

And I realized - they can do it because they SAY they can. But... but this 'because I said so' stuff is supposedly the sort of thing God says (and they reject), so again, how can anyone take what these atheists say seriously?

It's simple. Because they are smarter/richer/more famous than you. Or me. In other words, because they already have more power than we do. Or they make out they do. In our society they have the gun, so to speak, and they don't hesitate to put it to the head of anyone who disagrees with them.

You're stupid, so I'm automatically correct and we do it my way. Otherwise, you prove you don't value intelligence and only crazy people reject intelligence.

You're poor, so I'm automatically correct and we do it my way. If you were right, you'd be as rich as I am and actually have a say in things.

You're a nobody, so I'm automatically correct and we do it my way. If your opinion had any value, people would know about you and follow your every move. You would be a celebrity like me. They don't, so shut up.

This business of 'it is because I say it is' is funny. It's a closed loop of ego. Makes no sense, but as we are all Fallen, a lot of us secretly hope that one day we can have that kind of power - to defy logic itself and make things so just because we said so. So we too ignore the contradictions. After all, if enough of us agree they don't exist, they will go away. Right? If we can stomp down the pesky people who keep bringing them up - kill the messenger - the message will disappear, right? After all, if the message isn't delivered, it might as well not exist to someone whose entire outlook is about denying objective reality.

What a horrible freedom they have, these writers. I wonder if they realize what they look like from the outside? As viewed by normal people?

I already wish I could forget most of the stuff I have seen. It stinks and scalds of hatred and idiotic defiance. God help them all. I'll be honest, you've got more guts than I do. If I had to go to my blog every day and filter through that nasty hate-filled lunacy, I would be sorely tempted to chuck the whole thing.

A Skeptic Leaves Skepticism

Stephen Bond was born in Ireland, and admits to an early hatred of Ireland’s drunken culture, Jesus, and Christianity amongst other things. As soon as he was old enough and able, he left all those things behind and moved to France, winding up apparently in Belgium.

He became a capital-S Skeptic, and for years haunted the internet skeptic sites. But he has left Skepticism behind with a scathing assessment of its inhabitants. It’s not that he has changed any philosophical positions; he merely became skeptical of the Skeptics. He has written an article describing his rejection, and the reasons for it are those which are obvious to those of us who have always been skeptical of the Skeptics, but which apparently are new to him. Nonetheless Bond spares no one any feelings when he slashes the Skeptics’ sexism, racism, elitism, positivism, hate mongering, etc. And yet he still feels that “friars, preachers, despots” … are the ” historical enemies of progress”. Apparently sexism, racism, elitism, positivism are objectionable but don’t get in the way of whatever he thinks progress constitutes.

There are a couple of other articles in his “opinions” file which are interesting conjunctions to the above article: utopia, and purity. I haven’t read all his work, and I agree with only certain portions, but it is interesting writing and a view into real, if seemingly under-informed, skeptical inquiry.

Evidentialism according to Evid3nc3

A person self-appelled ”Evid3nc3”, has produced a video in which he purports to produce a logical path which shows definitively that the only justifiable beliefs are those possessing (a) personal experience for primary justification, and (b) physical evidence as a remote and suspect secondary justification.

In his first video, the author claims that there are no a priori truths which exist without a basis in the physical world. Yet he also claims that he subscribes to the Cogito of Descartes, which accepts his thought as adequate proof of his own existence, even without any physical basis due to being voluntarily disembodied at the point of discovery.

He proceeds by claiming five unjustified axioms, and promises to justify them, but does not get to that. He leaves the first video with that unresolved non-coherence, and several logical fallacies. But it is actually the second video which is more interesting, and there is where I will focus this article.

The second video is a response video. Apparently he got called out a lot on his logical failures, and the second video is intended to patch things up.

In the second video he attacks “coherentism”, specifically Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism. He claims that all three can be made to appear internally consistent, yet they contradict each other, so internal coherence is insufficient. He invokes the “Isolation Objection”: Not all can be true. OK, everyone knows that. But that doesn’t mean that all three are false, of course. He cites this principle:

“Coherence is necessary but not sufficient for a justified belief.”

No problem there; there are several logical considerations to validation of deductive processes. Coherence is one of those.

He then claims that the idea of universal consistency, while based on physical evidence, is an assumption and not self-evident or a priori truth; this doesn’t seem to follow, and he offers no proof for this claim, but he concludes:

Rationalists are making “some assumptions” just like the author does.

Tu Quoque.

The he labels it “dangerous” to unconsciously make an assumption, than to consciously make one, as he did. He can return to his assumptions for validation later. Does he ever do that? Not that I have found.

His ideas of Evidentialism expressed in his first video are apparently accused of self-refutation, and internal inconsistency. In response, the author now claims that in his first video, he implicitly excluded his first five claims from the requirement of evidence. (He is now sliding down his own slippery slope.)

He now claims that the first two claims cannot be proved, which seems to correspond to his critic’s claims against him. (6:56)

[And he inexplicably says that the Cogito assumes an “I” which can think. But it does not do that, it purports to prove that I exist, by virtue of knowing that thinking exists. There is no reason to suppose that “I” precedes thought, under this analysis. And there is no apparent reason to make this claim.]

So his first five claims now “are provisional hypotheses” which are open to future refutation or revision.” (7:04)

But if these five hypotheses can’t be proven, evidentially, how will he prove evidentialism based on them? He starts by scrapping the last three of the five, and making this declaration as #3:

“Physical evidence is a valid way of justifying beliefs.”

Aside from the tacit admission that his first video was wrong in this regard, this is a huge jump to conclusion. He might have said, that physical evidence “might” be a valid way of justifying beliefs, but he actually argued against that in his first video, where he claimed that personal experience was the valid method of justifying beliefs, and that evidence obtained through the body's sensors can be suspect and error prone.

At (7:49) he elevates a new revision to a full argument status (what was it before?) and claims that it is:

“OK, because even Rationalists agree that physical evidence is a valid form of justification”.

Well, no. Physical Evidence might or might not be valid, depending upon how it is acquired and perceived. It might be fraudulent, It might be ephemeral, it might be garbled in acquisition, etc. as the author himself pointed out in his first video. His original claim was that only personal experience could justify beliefs. That was then.

His argument now is this:

“ALL justified beliefs are justified by physical evidence” (!) (7:49)

Really. He makes this universal rule in part justified by his evidentiarily unproven “hypotheses” and in part as a reaction to criticism from Rationalists. If this is a justified belief, then where is the physical evidence which covers “ALL” possible beliefs which might in fact be true? Where is the physical evidence to support this universal claim? Now a belief is justified because someone else believes it?

What he seems to be doing at this point is to create a definition of “justified” to suit his own personal taste. The term “justified” has no metric attached to it, so it is a good wiggle word to put into one’s truth statement if one needs room to squirm. And he no longer seems to care to use the term “true”, as in “justified true beliefs”. Maybe he is off into something else now. Let’s continue and see.

Next he attacks that idea that mathematics is truth without physical proof. (Note 1) The author claims that “sets” cannot be extracted from anything except physical evidence. He presents no proof that no other source is possible. He is making a habit of associating a single possibility with the impossibility of any other answer, and declaring his single possibility as the sole truth. Yet he provides no actual physical proof that no other reason could have occurred for comprehending mathematical concepts. His solution is truth by assuming, not by any sort of proof.

He goes off into set theory, which he applies to all sorts of mathematics. Mathematics is abstractions of abstractions of abstractions, all of which are based on sets, he says. Abstracting from physical evidence (which he claims as probable, but provides no actual physical evidence for support) all derives from the physical universe. So apparently he is designating the physical universe as his axiom upon which all mathematics is conceived, and therefore no mathematics outside the universe would be valid, while our mathematics is justified by set theory, which could not have happened purely mentally. Has he proven that? Or has he merely provided a Just So Story to explain and keep his mental process intact? Is it even feasible that mathematics is confined to our universe?

He has not provided any physical evidence that math was actually derived by set theorists, or physical evidence that counting and naming numbers was only possible with physical objects and not otherwise. Nor has he provided evidence that pure mathematics is not supported completely by abstract axioms. (Note 1, again).

He is providing Just So Stories without any physical evidence, a process which should be anathema to him since he now absolutely requires physical evidence in order to hold a justified belief.

At 11:40 he demonstrates that math is useful for physical things, such as engineering applications. We all know that. His point is what? He doesn’t make a point: he jumps away quickly to:

Logic:
The deductive process of Modus Ponens is claimed to be “ubiquitous” in physical experience: but did physical experience cause Logic? Or as Locke claimed, is logic and rational thought a built-in organic function, a human intellectual faculty, an innate ability to categorize and axiomize and abstract? Did humans create categories, or did categories create themselves for humans to discover? Does Non-Contradiction exist as a physical entity, or is it a relationship discovered analytically by human intellect?

The author claims that logic is an illusion of self-evidence, and that our use of logic now doesn’t require the knowledge that physical evidence was used in the creation of logic. His presumption that the creation of logic absolutely required physical evidence is now, for him, a law, a truth yet completely and totally without any physical evidence for its support.

At 13:10 he claims that presenting the logic (in symbol form no less) to children will prove that the process is not self-evident. This is particularly unconvincing. Children understand cause and effect and if/then quite well.

But do they understand based only on physical evidence? Can consequences not be understood without lining up objects, as the author wants us to believe? He provides no physical evidence that this claim must be the case; he merely assumes that it is true without physical evidence that it actually is.

Now he jumps clear to a purely embodied mind, after originally claiming that his existence was dependent only on his disembodied mind, in concert with Descartes’ claim and not dependent upon his body or any physical existence. This has now changed to a physical dependency without any explanation other than that it just seems obvious to him.

He has lost the integrity of whatever his argument is or might have become. He starts with disembodied mind, and now claims the necessity of embodied mind with no logical if/then steps in between to justify that, much less does he demonstrate with physical evidence that there can absolutely be no mind without the body.

He has fallen into the Philosophical Materialism trap of claiming physical truths with no hope of any physical evidence to prove his claims. The universal claims which he now makes without physical evidence are actually blatant presuppositions which are necessary beliefs acquired after having concluded that Philosophical Materialism must be defended.

He is no longer following an argument to its actual conclusion, he is forcing the conclusion by contradicting his own earlier claims, and by making claims that are unsupported by his own evidentiary requirements. He is rationalizing.

He goes on to pursue the Lakoff/Nunez concept (Note 2) that mathematics doesn’t exist except in human brains. (14:01) While it is abstracted from material evidence, only, it really only exists in the minds of humans. If this is confusing, consider the response to the Lakoff/Nunez theory from actual mathematicians.

Here he now contradicts his earlier insistence that all mathematics derives specifically from direct material evidence, as when objects are pushed together in his example. It was all justified by physical objects. Now he endorses the idea that mathematics is a purely mental construct with no material component, except at the very beginning, somehow.

He then claims that Rationalists will not teach anything but memorization of “truths” while evidentialists will give examples (the example the author gives is not a physical example, by the way).

This complaint is necessarily incorrect. Rationalists will be more likely to teach the logical derivation of concepts, starting with axioms. The fact that the concepts might be easily demonstrated with physical analogs does not mean that the concepts came from the analogs and are wholly dependent upon them. That presumption is not proven nor is it provable using physical evidence.

Then he attacks “bad teachers” and uses the teaching process as a guide to the historical physical source of logic, mathematics and justified beliefs. He attacks Rationalism in teaching as the use of pure memorization rather than physical examples. This seems completely unjustified, yet it is the basis for his claim that his future videos can show that learning requires physical evidence. Undoubtedly learning is aided by physical examples; but as actual mathematicians know, math is not dependent on them for its existence.

Rationalism, he claims is due to a laziness about abstractions, leaving the job half done, by labeling some of the abstractions as a priori truths, rather than having a physical basis. Perhaps he will now psychoanalyze Peano, Frege, and all the explorers and practitioners of pure mathematics who claim otherwise, to determine why they disagree, as he did with Descartes.

He proceeds with the following obvious cop out: The evidentialist will at least have the

“intellectual honesty to admit when the job of justification is not yet finished”.

Not finished? Or is it that it actually does not exist under Philosophical Materialism? This is another way of stating the basis for Scientism:

I have faith that all justification will be provided with physical evidence, even though it currently cannot be done.

It is a religious faith statement, and a pompous, self-righteous, accusation against Rationalism.

It seems that the author is not actually familiar with the history of mathematical development, including the axioms of Peano, and the definitions of Frege. (Note 1)

His philosophy is another run at Logical Positivism? No, it’s not, he says.
Really? Looks like, sounds like, has the same principles as… why is it not? He doesn’t say.

His actual response is this: Prove it: The Burden of Rebuttal suddenly exists! The accuser must prove that this is actually Logical Positivism. Well, if all the elements of Set A correspond with all the elements of Set B, then Set A = Set B.

For his next video he wants to apply the physical evidentiary requirement to God. A whole video based on Category Error? Hm.

Note 1:
Refer to Bertrand Russell’s “Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy” and his “The Principles of Mathematics” as well as “A History of Mathematics”, by Carl B. Bover. It is recognized that numbers and subsequent math derived in prehistory with base 5 as long ago as 30,000 years. According to Bover, anthropological studies suggest that counting was developed as ordinals by religious considerations in relating creation stories and their sequences, not by the need to count stones, or objects.

But mathematics was “untethered” from sensory considerations by Peano’s axioms, and Frege’s principles of "number" upon which modern mathematics is based. Today mathematics is completely abstract and without any material, physical input, starting with its axioms as the basis.

Russell:
“Thanks to the progress of symbolic logic, especially as treated by Professor Peano, that part of Kantian philosophy is now capable of a final and irrevocable refutation. By the help of ten principles of deduction and ten other premisses of a general logical nature (e.g. “implication is a relation), all mathematics can be strictly and formally deduced; and all the entities tht occur in mathematics can be defined in terms of those that occur in the above twenty premisses.

…

“All propositions as to what actually exists, like the space we live in, belong to experimental or empirical science, not to mathematics; when they belong to applied mathematics, they arise from giving to one or more of the variables in a proposition of pure mathematics some constant value satisfying the hypothesis, and thus enabling us, for that value of the variable, actually to assert both hypothesis and consequent instead of merely asserting the implication.”

From Russell, “The Principles of Mathematics”,Merchant Books, 1903, pgs 4, 5.

Note 2:
Wiki has some objections to Lakoff/Nunez by actual mathematicians.

One observation was this:

"When Paul Dirac's equations describing electrons produced more than one solution, he surmised that nature must possess other particles, now known as antimatter. But scientists did not discover such particles until after Dirac's math told him they must exist. If math is a human invention, nature seems to know what was going to be invented."

Indeed, the math preceded the observation, not the other way around. That frequently is how scientific hypotheses work, with the physical experimental data confirming the mathematics, not generating it. Einstein's abstract thought experiment produced Relativity, and was confirmed much later by experimental observation.

Also, Lakoff/Nunez appear not to know much about the history of mathematics including pertinent junctures provided by Peano and others.

Lakoff and Nunez reply that Mathematicians who are not cognitive experts cannot discuss their approach to mathematics; Yet, neither Lakoff nor Nunez is a mathematician and still they pretend to understand the primitives of mathematics.

An Atheist Jumps...

Out of the box.

Greta Christina and her wife visit the Mormon Tabernacle.

Atheist Greta Christina has taken on “All Religions” in an article at alternet, claiming that All Religions Are Equally Crazy.

”First, just to be very clear: I'm not saying all religious believers are crazy. I'm saying religious beliefs are crazy. I'm criticizing the ideas, not the people. And when I say "crazy" (or "nutty" or "batshit" or "lunatic" or what have you), I don't mean "literally, clinically mentally ill." I mean "crazy" in the colloquial sense -- radically out of step with cultural norms, or out of touch with reality.”

A religion should be in-step with cultural norms? Really? How can that assertion possibly be justified? Here, it is without justification.

As for reality, what exactly is Christina’s reality, where does it start and where does it stop? How exactly does she know? We shall watch for answers to these things as we go along.

”We're social animals, and we're wired to think that if everyone else thinks something, it's probably true. Or at the very least, that it's not batshit insane on the face of it, and we ought to give it serious consideration.”

This is just the set-up for the coming accusation that people have beliefs without evidence; people are too lazy and/or stupid to analyze the beliefs of other people, and just accept them uncritically.

”From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, this bias makes sense. Other people can, in fact, be a useful reality check: if everyone in your tribe is screaming "Tiger!" and you don't see one, it still makes sense to run. But it's a confounding bias to contend with when you're rigorously examining a truth claim. It makes it hard to voice unpopular perceptions... and indeed even to conceive of them. It's very, very difficult to be the first person to say out loud, "The Emperor has no clothes." It's even more difficult to say it to ourselves.”

Another step in the set-up. People are so subject to group mentality that they can’t think for themselves.

But she doesn’t defend the need for a religion to conform to cultural norms, she merely asserts that, and then declares that, if cultural norms are the metric, then Mormonism is a failure. And that’s it. There is no defense of the metric, she just uses it with the presumption that it makes sense. Possibly it does, to her (another of her opinions); but there is no reason given or rational case made for accepting that metric as a criterion for any religion. In fact, is generally the case that a culture will conform to the religion, not the other way around, and the standard Atheist charge is that religions are invented to control the populace, not that the culture drives religions. Christina is well off the Atheist ranch on this one.

”But if what you mean by "crazy" is "out of touch with reality"?
Then it's all equally crazy.
Any belief in a supernatural world that affects the natural one is equally implausible, equally the product of cognitive biases, equally unsupported by any good evidence.”

Christina asserts “implausibility” as if it were a universal truth rather than a personal opinion. But it actually is just her personal opinion, not an empirical fact. Christina does talk about evidence, and again hedges her opinion into it to make her personal judgment a mere opinion: it is “good” evidence that is missing, apparently not all or any evidence. And whatever it takes to make evidence “good” in her opinion is completely missing from the assertion.

Christina likes the term “cognitive bias”, which she uses to paint humans as nearly completely driven by prejudicial, almost deterministic responses, devoid of any analytical or critical thought processing. She makes this charge without any evidence for its support, it is merely a smear by implication. She uses the term often enough that one wonders if the concept she is pushing is actually a cognitive bias of her own. It seems impossible not to wonder if her own worldview is not driven largely by her lesbianism, a practice which is naturally at odds with virtually all religions except the new culturally-driven liberal pseudo-religions. That personal proclivity alone could produce cognitive bias against all religions, one would suspect. That might explain her view that other’s beliefs are actually their cognitive biases, because she is saddled with her own cognitive bias. After all, projection is another common human trait.

Nonetheless, Christina has produced accusations, or at least opinions, without any evidence. The idea that humans are susceptible to group think or that they cannot think critically is presented without evidence that it actually exists in every case she includes, and that it has actual causality for the cause and effect which Christina wants us to believe exists.

Christina has denied “good” evidence, without examining any actual evidence, and has produced no evidence to support her denial, nor any clue as to what she would accept as “good”. Christina has attributed falseness to cognitive bias without demonstrating actual cognitive bias, or demonstrating that falseness exists in the basic Theist propositions.

Christina has merely attacked ecclesiastic accoutrements which have accrued onto Theism, without even touching Theism itself. For her, if ecclesiastic claims do not meet her Philosophical Materialist standards, then religion is to be ridiculed (use the pejorative “magic” as many times as you can) and therefore, there is no god. But that is Non Sequitur, and blatantly so. Christina has not justified Atheism; in fact many Christ followers agree with many of her assessments of ecclesial additions to Theism.

”But all religions are out of touch with reality. All religions are implausible, based on cognitive biases, and unsupported by any good evidence whatsoever.”

This repetition seems to indicate that this is the extent of Christina’s charges: (1)implausible (opinion); (2)cognitive biases (unproven and certainly potentially applicable in the reverse); (3) no “good” evidence (another opinion: what is "good"?). These three charges seem to constitute her entire case, which she takes on as a dogma – a triune dogma of unproven assertions.

She has not developed an air tight case which falsifies basic Theism; she has merely asserted some of her own biases, without evidence other than that circumstantially regarding ecclesiasticism, not Theism.

And I just have to love this part:

”All of them ultimately rely on faith -- i.e., an irrational attachment to a pre-existing idea regardless of any evidence that contradicts it -- as the core foundation of their belief. “

Now is she talking about Philosophical Materialism, her own bias? Because that view of “reality” is aptly described by her own words here. And the internal contradiction of Philosophical Materialism qualifies as the “contradictory evidence” which she ignores regarding her own beliefs. Moreover, her own assertions (implausibility, cognitive bias, no “good” evidence) have had no evidence presented in their support, only implications of Guilt By Association, the Fallacy. In fact, should she ever read this, I challenge Christina to produce empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed scientific public data which refutes incorrigibly the claims made by the eyewitnesses to the miracle at Lourdes. That should keep her busy; or perhaps she will merely go into various denial tactics: we would see. Then she could explain what “good” evidence is in her opinion; she can produce empirical evidence for the cause and effect of the charges made in her triune dogma.

”All of them contort, ignore, or deny reality in order to maintain their attachment to their faith.
And by that definition, all religions are equally crazy.”

This charge is merely a fatuous opinion based on her opinion of that which “reality” consists of. She shows no proof that reality is limited to physical existence: none. Her apparent opinion that reality is limited to physical existence is a belief without evidence or logical support: a blind belief religiously held: the failed Philosophical Materialism. So along with the rest of this article, we have only been served up opinion, presented as truth, with no actual facts which are pertinent even to her triune dogma, much less the refutation of basic Theism.

What Christina has done here seems to conflate “religions”, which she attacks, and Theism, for which she provides no case. Anti-religion is not the same as a-theism, and she has made no case for Atheism. She harbors a great distaste for religion, a distaste which borders on hatred it appears, and manifests itself in opinion presented as fact, and ridicule, not factual, empirical refutation. And that just might be part of her own cognitive bias.

Daniel Henson makes up a story

Henson has a paper which he calls Dossier of Reason. Is it? Let’s take a quick look.

Here is just part one, The Problem of Predisposition, which he seems to think drives all personal philosophies:

I. The theist defines a god. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns.

This is abjectly ignorant of actual Theism. By making up a phony Theist, Henson has predicated his entire argument on a completely false premise. Actual Theism observes physical reality (empirically) and then deduces whether non-physical observable traits which exist could have physical, deterministic causes. If not, what sort of causes must they have, if they are not independent “causes without a cause” themselves. This is a legitimate thought process, and is entirely different from the Atheist thought process which eliminates a priori the ability of a non-physical process to have any other source than deterministic physical causes. This Atheist restriction is without any rational reason; it is dogma only.

Henson’s definition is a Straw Man. Atheists charge opponents with creating Straw Men in virtually every argument situation, and rarely if ever is their charge correct. Yet Atheists use Straw Men constantly in their own arguments, as is demonstrated here. It’s as if they fear that which they use the most, as robbers fearing being robbed because that is what they do and are familiar with.

Here the charge of Straw Man is legitimate. Henson has fantasized a target to attack in further arguments. Because he actually has fully defined his target, his argument might be valid regarding that target. The issue is whether that target represents actuality, and it quite obviously does not, except in Henson’s mind.

Because he conceptualizes Theists as fools, this entire work is seen to be an exercise in Atheist bigotry.

But for grins, let’s at least take a look at his second proposition.

II. The theist rejects thousands of other definitions of god without considering most of them.

False in the first place: Theists are aware that other gods are worshipped and that if they exist they are subsidiary to the creator of all of them, rendering them rationally trivial.

In the second place that is immaterial to any claims that a deity does not exist; it is merely the basis for a Tu Quoque Fallacy and nothing more.

This is interesting; a compendium of logic errors in a paper titled "Dossier of Reason". Let’s do the next one:

III. There are billions of people who reject the theist’s particular definition of god, who have as little regard for the theists (sic) definition of god as he does for their definition of god(s).

This is an appeal to popular opinion fallacy, which has no bearing on either facts or truth; it is used as prejudicial data, but it is not evidence for the lack of a non-physical agent.

IV The theist’s choices in defininig god are very likely determined by culture, accident of birth, and childhood indoctrination.

While this has some credibility in terms of demographics, it has no bearing on whether a non-physical agent actually exists; it is another set of prejudicial data which is without any truth value regarding the actual subject. And it includes the fallacy from number I, above, assuming that the deity is created by humans as the first premise in the argument (circular).

V. The Outsider Test.

This is a bogus assumption which assumes that there are no logical arguments to be made, and proceeds to attack arguments which are neither necessary nor sufficient, nor even useful for the actual subject at hand. All logical arguments are ignored as if they do not exist. This is prejudicial to the maximum, and has no value in determining the credibility of actual Theist arguments.

That’s it for part one. I see no need to continue, since every argument is false or prejudicial and non-essential. In terms of philosophy and logic, this paper is a non-starter.

"No One Can Prove Me Wrong": An Excuse For Atheist Non-Rational Denials Sans Evidence.

[Hat tip to Martin for directing me to Qualia Soup] The completely self-unaware Qualia soup explains why Atheists have no Burden of Proof, and the other guy always does. He starts by making the standard Fallacy-laden attacks on theist claims: They are based on a need to have an answer now rather than waiting on science, which he equates with the argument from ignorance; they have no explanatory power, e.g. how does divine speech create mass/energy? They fail to produce the honorable answer, which is “I don’t know”.

QS equates Theist arguments with "no one can prove me wrong" claims from all sorts of metaphysical quackery. But he is also quick to point out that all the Theist arguments definitely have already been proved wrong, in his opinion. Or maybe he is admitting that they cannot be proved wrong, and that's just wrong, again in his opinion. What he is saying in this regard depends on where you are in the conversation.

He makes the bewildering argument that one need not know everything about the universe, so Theism is of no use. But that is Special Pleading since many Atheists are scientists pursuing knowledge of the universe, so they think that sort of knowledge has value. So that argument fails at the gate.

He then proceeds with the Voidist theory of Atheism: the Atheist makes no claim other than the claim that all the Theist claims are invalid; so the Atheist needs no proof for the validity of his own claim (and it is a claim, despite the claim that the claim is not a claim). And therefore that claim is itself internally contradictory and self-defeating.

According to QS, only the claim maker has burden, yet when the Atheist claims the claim to be false, that claim is not the same thing as a claim, and need not be justified as if the claim were actually a claim. If you catch his drift.

Further according to QS:

“Theism is just one of a “ragbag” of claims, which no one needs to give credence to.”

So he claims the right to deny them along with everything else in the category labelled "Categorically Self-evidently False A Priori". Declaring them false right here up front saves so much time and effort. Unfortunately it is circular and false and irrational. It does set a tone for what's to come, though.

Further, says he, two rules for debate do not exist: only the claimant has a burden. The skeptic has no claim (other than being the claimant claiming that the other’s claim is false, for no claimed reason, no claimed logic, no claimed empirical data for support). See, by claiming that you are making no claim of rebuttal it requires no Burden of Proof for the rebuttal, if you are QS. That makes life so much easier. Skeptics merely claim that Theistic arguments fail (no need to prove that claim, it's just obvious, self-evident, like an axiom). The “real” Double Standard, claims QS, is expecting a skeptic to prove the claims which derive from his skepticism. Expecting that of a skeptic is not a good thing (for the skeptic).

In a string of remarkable claims, QS identifies his idea of a dishonest claim: “lacking the belief in the non-existence of gods”, which is just the Theist version of the Atheist claim, "lacking the belief in the existence of gods" and to QS, that sort of mimicry cannot be acceptable. So QS goes to great lengths to claim that sort of mimicry is just wrong, which he does in order to discount the Atheist's position as also being valid for Theists. This results in a prolonged exercise in Special Pleading:

[the remainder of this is directly transcribed from QS on his Burden of Proof video, and might contain unintentional typos. My comments are interspersed in brackets].

“…aping the skeptic’s position doesn’t eliminate the need for justification."

[Say what? If it works for the skeptic, then it must be allowed for the Other, too. Otherwise it is Special Pleading - Atheist hypocrisy]

"If one goes these lengths to avoid the Burden of Proof, one has to wonder about their strength of conviction. If there are sound reasons for believing in supernatural beings, why not lay out those reasons instead of wasting time in this curious denial dance? "

[Oh my yes! Lay those refutations out! Why should the Atheists get to do the dance of going to great lengths to avoid the Burden of Proof, but no one else gets to dance? Either everyone should get to dance, or no one should; fair is fair!]

" If a scientist speaking at a conference complained about the unfairness of having to present evidence for their claims, they’d empty the auditorium. But in the area of supernatural claims we consistently encounter people who are reluctant, even indignant, when reminded of their Burden of Proof."

[So all auditoriums should empty out when Atheists complain about having to present evidence for their claims. And as for metaphysical claims, one suspects that people do become irritated when material data is demanded for non-material claims - and then the claim for counter proof responsibility is denied. Also, obviously lacking in this QS article is the overt statement that the “proof” required must meet the “standards” of the skeptics and no one else, referring to a standard which is also obviously lacking in this video but which is quite obviously the scientific, empirical proofs endorsed by AtheoMaterialists as the only source of knowledge. Those proofs, of course, require a falsifiable subject matter, which Theist claims are not, therefore invalidating the requirement and making the AtheoMaterialist evidentiary standards false, inconsequential, and trivial]

"In many ways this isn’t surprising. The expectation of evidence is kryptonite to claims that lack sufficient support."

[Such as Atheist claims of theist non-validity while offering no empirical evidence as support for their claims]

"People who pretend to be psychic developed an arsenal of smoke and mirror tactics to fend off critical questions. For centuries, certain religions have demonized questions and in the process developed a skewed complacency about not anwering them. But today increasingly we understand that there is no valid basis for letting supernatural claims escape justification."

[The use of the undefined term “justification” throughout is indicative of the intransigent nature of this demand; one may require different justification for opponent’s claims than for one’s own claims, or one may demand out-of-set justification for the opponents claims, and that’s exactly what this is all about. Further, the invocation of mystery religion and psychics is not an argument against any deity; it is a Red Herring. Finally, justification has already been denied at the outset; and a need for material justification is a Category Error. So this is all just false blather]

"We see through institutions which forbid or evade questions, that declare themselves unaccountable. We are rightly critical of them and we expect and demand better. If certain groups over the centuries have grown accustomed to not substantiating their claims so they regard the mere suggestion as impudent, the way we resolve that is not by letting them remain accustomed to dismissing their Burden of Proof but by pointing out that they were at fault for growing so accustomed in the first place."

[This is totally irrelevant to the issue of requiring Atheists to support their claims of falseness; another Red Herring]

"Supernatural claims that survived/thrived historically by shrouding themselves in mystery are now more than ever in the information age being fished out into the glare of rigorous inquiry. And they are suffering in their new, alien environment where their old tricks aren’t so effective on the more critical modern mind. Booming threats don’t cow us into obedience as in years gone by. Too many of us know what is going on behind the curtain. In greater and greater numbers we are outgrowing the long intellectual stagnation of human kinds superstitious adolescence. When we are exposing supernatural claims that have bluffed and bullied their way into a position of unearned respect, they deserve no reverence and deserve no more ceremony than any other claim."

[More and more irrelevance, having nothing to do with requiring Atheists to prove their claims of falseness]

"Clearly, demanding evidence for every statement uttered would make interaction impossible.

[A common dodge: Atheists want to muddy up the issue by claiming that Theist claims are just part of a stream of claims that they can't take the time to argue properly. So they can all be denied, categorically, as was done initially. But they also claim that they have defeated the theist arguments, and that the theist arguments aren't falsifiable and can't be defeated. What they claim depends on the need of the moment]

"But those who make bold supernatural claims should get used to owning their Burden of Proof."

[Yes. Making the claim of falseness regarding a claim of supernatural existence requires owning their Burden of Proof; merely claiming that it is false with no reason or support or evidence fails the Atheist’s own requirements. Further, their requirements are materialist, and thus their Burden of Proof is to provide material evidence to support their claim of falseness].

"In science..."

[Watch this carefully: science is being invoked in a metaphysical conversation]

"...owning a Burden of Proof is routine..."

[so is owning the Burden of Rebuttal]

"...because it is understood by those who observe scientific principles that claims require justification..."

[including skeptical denialist claims made without empirical evidence].

"It’s expected that authors of scientific papers will explain their reasoning and evidence."

[Including and especially those claiming disproof].

"And it’s common for this to be done, not grudgingly, but enthusiastically."

[Yes! Atheists should embrace this enthusiastically!]

"If we’re interested in holding justified beliefs, finding out which claims have valid support and which don’t is something to embrace, not avoid."

[Absolutely! This includes claims that declare having falsified another claim]

"It’s when we stake our egos, hopes or identities on specific claims that we create needless problems, because anything which threatens the claim also threatens us. The Burden of Proof becomes threatening because having to justify the claim risks discovering that we can’t do so.

[Wherein the QS demonstrates his total self-unawareness: Atheists are threatened so badly by having the Burden to support their skeptical denial claims that they become maximally irrational when pushed hard to do so.]

"In this way our ability to assess the claim becomes fatally undermined by personal need for it to be true whether or not it has valid support. If on the other hand we commit ourselves not to specific claims but to refining knowledge…"

[This is a wonderfully self-unaware statement of the need to adhere to destructive skepticism, and never, ever take a stance on a piece of knowledge, because that would require that the skeptic has to leave skepticism in order to defend his new knowledge; i.e. take a position which requires a Burden of Proof. Skepticism is a refuge from knowledge, where one can take potshots from the front porch without joining the parade. This is their idea of "refining knowledge". They don't actually want knowldge; they want to destroy whatever they don't like, with no repercussions. ]

"we can watch claims gather support or collapse, without the Burden of Proof forming any personal threat."

[no commitment, no threat, so do not leave skepticism for knowledge, ever]

"Meeting a Burden of Proof isn’t always easy. But without this mechanism, without people volunteering “here’s my new idea and the evidence to support it”, our education would be at a standstill."

[Unless “my new idea” is that "your metaphysical claim is false", then as an Atheist I don’t need any evidence for that idea, Of Course].

[And the unstated presupposition is that the desirable education is Materialism-only, because history, math, logic, philosophy, ethics etc have no material evidence]

"Fortunately a long history of genuine contributors to education haven’t been so unforthcoming. Supernatural claim makers who think they are somehow exempt from the standards which apply to other claim makers…"

[BINGO! Here it is: the same standards apply for metaphysical claims that apply to materialism; it’s the infamous Atheist and Materialist Category Error. The always self-unaware QS admits to his erroneous requirements without realizing he has done so]

"…are mistaken."

[thus it is perfectly reasonable under this schema to demand that Atheists provide material, empirical, scientific hard data for their claims that Theist metaphysical claims are false. They are not exempt from their own rules.]

"And in an increasingly educated world… "

[False: technologically trained under Materialist restrictions, not well educated; these folks have no actual knowledge of logic, despite their use of co-opted terms they don’t understand, such as “Special Pleading”]

"...their Special Pleading will only see them left behind in the darkness of past ignorance, where many of their claims originated."

[It is absolutely NOT Special Pleading to demand that the characteristics of a set be used when determining how to analyze the set! If the set is “metaphysical”, then the use of “physical” requirements is irrational: it is a Category Error.]

"Extraordinary claims have an inescapable Burden of Proof".

[Such extraordinary claims as Philosophical Materialism for example; abiogenesis; the material mind; lack of human agency; and the claims that Theist claims are false. Yes, Burden of Proof.]

"When those who make extraordinary claims don’t for whatever reason take their Burden of Proof seriously, they relieve us of the burden of taking their claim seriously."

[Which is exactly why Atheists have no intellectual credibility. Making claims that Other’s claims are false, yet denying that they must support their claims, makes the Atheist an intellectual failure, and more than that, an intellectual coward who runs from his responsibility and hides behind the skirts of denialism – denying that he has any responsibility for his own worldview, and need not justify it.

In fact, returning to the “standards required” statement made by QS above, if the standard is to deny responsibility for any Burden of Proof and just claim without support that the opposing claim is false, then unless that standard is extended to Theists too, the Special Pleading of Atheists is overwhelmingly obvious.

So this whole exercise by QS is false, from start to finish.

For an antagonist to merely claim that an argument is false without having to prove it to be false under the evidentiary theory of the antagonist, is intellectual cowardice and irresponsibility.]

Jerry Coyne Explains Why You Have No Free Will

Jerry Coyne declares the death of Free Will with the same perspicacity with which he declared that “Evolution is True”:

”Perhaps you've chosen to read this essay after scanning other articles on this website. Or, if you're in a hotel, maybe you've decided what to order for breakfast, or what clothes you'll wear today.

You haven't. You may feel like you've made choices, but in reality your decision to read this piece, and whether to have eggs or pancakes, was determined long before you were aware of it — perhaps even before you woke up today. And your "will" had no part in that decision. So it is with all of our other choices: not one of them results from a free and conscious decision on our part. There is no freedom of choice, no free will. And those New Year's resolutions you made? You had no choice about making them, and you'll have no choice about whether you keep them.

The debate about free will, long the purview of philosophers alone, has been given new life by scientists, especially neuroscientists studying how the brain works. And what they're finding supports the idea that free will is a complete illusion”

The debate about Free Will is in no manner the purview of philosophers or neuroscientists alone; the suggestion that these folks will tell the rest of us whether we have Free Will is ludicrous and arrogant-elitist. Coyne’s thinking is superficial enough that his personal elitism in this regard is merely his own delusion.

”But two lines of evidence suggest that such free will is an illusion.

The first is simple: we are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics. All the success of science rests on the regularity of those laws, which determine the behavior of every molecule in the universe. Those molecules, of course, also make up your brain — the organ that does the "choosing." And the neurons and molecules in your brain are the product of both your genes and your environment, an environment including the other people we deal with. Memories, for example, are nothing more than structural and chemical changes in your brain cells. Everything that you think, say, or do, must come down to molecules and physics.”

The massive reductionism in which Coyne engages here is ideological, not scientific. The idea that I will type a certain word here as being predetermined by the Big Bang’s effect on my molecules is totally without any material evidentiary support. It is pure ideology which resembles a credulous belief without evidence whatsoever: blind belief. It is pure ideology which doesn’t even match common sense, which is why Coyne and the physicalists claim that we all are deluded (except for Special Pleading clarity for themselves, of course).

”We can't impose a nebulous "will" on the inputs to our brain that can affect its output of decisions and actions, any more than a programmed computer can somehow reach inside itself and change its program.”

Neglecting the inaccurate comparison to computers (agent vs non-agent), the statement is another ideology, a credulous belief without any evidence whatsoever, despite what Coyne claims as evidence below.

”'Meat computers'

And that's what neurobiology is telling us: Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into a predetermined output. Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject "decides" to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it.”

If it happened that Coyne actually understood digital general purpose computers, he would have realized that activity doesn’t mean final decision. If a differentiation is to be accomplished, then memories must be accessed and loaded for comparison. Input data must compared against other memories to discern if the data is coherent. Registers must be loaded, clock cycles tick off as data is shifted, then compared, new registers are loaded as the instruction cycles complete. That is how digital computers work.

The digital computer is not programmed by its “genes”; that would mean that the hardware designer would preprogram – in hardware – all the outcomes of the computers processing. The digital computer is a general purpose machine, which is programmed by the software, and its output is not expected to be deterministic on the physical machine’s prior history of design. If it were the case that the design influences the output, the machines would be useless. The comparison is absurd, and it is an assertion of massive ignorance to make the claim which Coyne makes.

As for the seven second delay, or even more which Coyne suggests, does anyone actually wait seven seconds or more between a situation being presented and a decision being presented to the brain through the delusion of having made the decision oneself? Are any of us that slow? Do we stand there mute, awaiting the decision to be presented to our consciousness?

”Psychologists and neuroscientists are also showing that the experience of will itself could be an illusion that evolution has given us to connect our thoughts, which stem from unconscious processes, and our actions, which also stem from unconscious process. We think this because our sense of "willing" an act can be changed, created, or even eliminated through brain stimulation, mental illness, or psychological experiments. The ineluctable scientific conclusion is that although we feel that we're characters in the play of our lives, rewriting our parts as we go along, in reality we're puppets performing scripted parts written by the laws of physics.”
[emphasis added]

Coyne claims here that the “sense of willing” is negated by (a) monkeying around in the brain with electrodes, (b) mental illness (already delusional), (c) psychologists in charge of confusing test subjects. This, to Coyne, makes the “scientific conclusion” ineluctable. There are some additional problems with this, atop of the surface absurdity being asserted:

(1) where are these scientific conclusions being ineluctably asserted? He doesn't say.

(2) No science is ineluctable. Ever. Period.

(3) And exactly how is puppetry asserted on my decision to type this word? He doesn't say.

Perhaps his electrons could get in touch with my electrons, and explain these lapses.

”Most people find that idea intolerable, so powerful is our illusion that we really do make choices. But then where do these illusions of both will and "free" will come from? We're not sure. I suspect that they're the products of natural selection, perhaps because our ancestors wouldn't thrive in small, harmonious groups — the conditions under which we evolved — if they didn't feel responsible for their actions. Sociological studies show that if people's belief in free will is undermined, they perform fewer prosocial behaviors and more antisocial behaviors.”

So if we are all, every one of us,100% deluded (Except Coyne and associates) it is all covered by evolution, which Coyne knows for certain is True. Because evolution is True, there is no need to provide any evidence apparently.

Perhaps there actually are people who are merely meat machines, automatons driven by their electrons to do things which have no decision making made in conscious space; maybe Coyne is one of those who has no conscious control over what he writes, because it is directed causally by his electrons and their physics, clear back to the Big Bang. Still it is doubtful that Coyne, one would think, would claim no credit for having written these things, because he is a paid, staff philosopher who needs to publish in order to eat. For Coyne to reject his own agency is highly unlikely: someone should ask him how that works out for him.

If Coyne believes that his house, plumbing, automobile, roads, the computer he types on, that all these things were created 7 seconds or more prior to thinking about them, he has a lot more to prove than blood flow directed to certain areas in the brain. Coyne seems programmed, in fact, to consider only a certain type of input, under certain presuppositions which he cannot shake.

He winds up with a list of consequences of having no Free Will.

First is that religion which promotes free choice of its tenets is falsified. (how could we have guessed that?)

Second, is that criminals are not responsible for their actions (who is, then?). Coyne is quick to assert his moral reasons for why criminals actually should be punished anyway. But ironically his reasoning involves free choice: a person might not like that consequence and choose a different path for future behavior.

Coyne recognizes “not much downside” to denying Free Will. And there are upsides, two of them:

(1) ” The first is realizing the great wonder and mystery of our evolved brains, and contemplating the notion that things like consciousness, free choice, and even the idea of "me" are but convincing illusions fashioned by natural selection.”

Actually this seems to mean that blind belief in evolution is an occasion for wonder and joy.

(2) ” Further, by losing free will we gain empathy, for we realize that in the end all of us, whether Bernie Madoffs or Nelson Mandelas, are victims of circumstance — of the genes we're bequeathed and the environments we encounter. With that under our belts, we can go about building a kinder world.”

Having just admitted the following: ” Sociological studies show that if people's belief in free will is undermined, they perform fewer prosocial behaviors and more antisocial behaviors”, Coyne’s conclusion is bizarre; more empathy? Are you sure, Jerry? And who is to say that the current level of empathy is insufficient? Does Coyne have the moral authority to so declare? Based on exactly what data? Certainly not the data which he himself provides, which specifically indicates less empathy, not more. All in all, it looks like another ideology being presented as science of some sort.

Coyne is an unabashed Philosophical Materialist whose inadequate comprehension of science, its axioms, as well as computers, their operation and design, renders his philosophical twisting of neurological findings false and useless. And that is not to mention that his own agency in making these declarations falsifies the declarations outright. It’s not rocket science to understand that.

Note to self: I probably should mention Scientism in this review, so I just did.
Another Note: hat tip to Mariano. Thanks!

Over At Massimo’s Place

Over at Massimo’s place, things get ugly as three celebrity Atheists duke it out. Dawkins and Coyne get bitter and rude, and Massimo charges PhD envy, and he has more than the other two put together.

Of more substance is Massimo’s article on Atheist activism. The big division in the past has been over whether Atheists should be nice and tolerant while fighting for their own rights (whatever those are) or whether they should be “in your face”, meaning rude and crude while trying to eliminate religion altogether. This has been the internal Atheist war of “accomodationists” v.s. “anti-accomodationists”, where the anti-accomodationists refuse to tolerate even accomodationists like Massimo. (That’s the source of some of the vitriol from Coyne and Dawkins).

Massimo recommends four different objectives and gives reasons for them.
1. Unsurprisingly, first is the promotion of the Separation of Church and State. Even many Christians support this, especially when confronted with Sharia, or even the state churches in Europe. But the problem is in the definition: Atheists seem to want all ethical associations severed with the American religious tradition, Christianity. The dearth of common ethics associated with Atheism as a common objective for social contracts is a deadly characteristic for Atheism in this pursuit.

2. Atheists need to be accepted; Massimo points to the mistrusted groups data. Massimo’s position here is that Atheists need to behave themselves in order to generate trust:
” Now, if one’s goal is to be accepted (not just tolerated) in a society, one is more likely to achieve that goal by playing social and nice (which does not at all mean to capitulate or compromise on principles), as opposed to constantly jeering or hurling insults at other members of said society.”
Massimo is swimming up a waterfall here, for two reasons. First, Atheism as an ethical position generates distrust all by itself: it has no attached ethic. With out a specific Atheist ethic, there is nothing for anyone to trust in. Second, many people are Atheists for the purpose of satisfying their rebellion and giving themselves a sense of superiority, and that hubris in an intellectual and maturity void will naturally result in “constantly jeering and hurling insults”. And being nice and tolerant is specifically rejected by most of the New Atheists and the third tier players like PZ. There is no chance at all for the success of this initiative by Massimo. No, there is no reason that Atheists “should be accepted”, other than that they want to be; and they want to be without any change to their ethic-free world view: Atheism.

3. Combating dogmatism. Ironically, Philosophical Materialism is entirely dogmatic, and without a shred of material or logical evidence in its support. It is not credible to think that Atheists will give it up.

4. Elimination of irrationalism. Under Massimo’s personal definition, Materialism is tautological with rationalism. But in actuality, Materialism is irrational under its own evidentiary standards, making universal claims with no material evidence. Would Massimo eliminate Materialism due to its irrationality? Demonstrably not. So this is a lost cause for Atheism also, because of the same issues in #3.

But Massimo, even though a popular NYC blogger and man-about-town, is on the outs with the most powerful of the big dog Atheist icons. So there is little possibility that his opinions will get much airing outside of the Big Apple (except perhaps more ridicule). Maybe I have helped just a little bit with that. You’re welcome, Massimo.

Massimo on Engineers, Intellectualism and Timothy Ferris.

[Note: this article has three main areas; first a summary of an article extolling engineering and attacking "intellectuals", by Timothy Ferris at WIRED; second, a rebuttal from a self-designated "intellectual", Massimo Pigliucci; and third, an analysis by me, an engineer by training and trade (disclosure).]

The pursuit of ungrounded ideas (Philosophy) has been maligned, and Massimo Pigliucci is riding his high horse to its defense. An article in WIRED by Timothy Ferris takes some shots at the pretenses of social progress due to intellectualism as compared to the gains to humanity provided by technology. In other words, it’s the engineers vs. the “intellectuals”. Surely Ferris knew that the “intellectuals” have words as their only product, and that they would surely use them to mount a counter attack.

Starting somewhere in prehistory, Ferris claims that humans, being without words, were fact-based. They would learn by seeing and doing, then repeating to find out what worked. If it worked it became knowledge, and all without the use of words. Then along came words and language, and some folks figured out that they could create knowledge just by thinking in words. This was the beginning of the “idea” era, where facts weren’t needed so much any more:

” A new class emerged — the intellectuals.

Being an intellectual had more to do with fashioning fresh ideas than with finding fresh facts. Facts used to be scarce on the ground anyway, so it was easy to skirt or ignore them while constructing an argument.”

Intellectuals from Rousseau and Max to Freud and Feyerabend all get taken to task over being factless:

” Eventually it became fashionable in intellectual circles to assert that there was no such thing as a fact, or at least not an objective fact. Instead, many intellectuals maintained, facts depend on the perspective from which are adduced. Millions were taught as much in schools; many still believe it today.

Reform-minded intellectuals found the low-on-facts, high-on-ideas diet well suited to formulating the socially prescriptive systems that came to be called ideologies. The beauty of being an ideologue was (and is) that the real world with all its imperfections could be criticized by comparing it, not to what had actually happened or is happening, but to one’s utopian visions of future perfection. As perfection exists neither in human society nor anywhere else in the material universe, the ideologues were obliged to settle into postures of sustained indignation. “Blind resentment of things as they were was thereby given principle, reason, and eschatological force, and directed to definite political goals,” as the sociologist Daniel Bell observed.”

Compared to the “factless” intellectuals are the engineers, those who actually test their hypotheses against reality:

” While the intellectuals were busy with all that, the world’s scientists and engineers took a very different path. They judged ideas (“hypotheses”) not by their brilliance but by whether they survived experimental tests. Hypotheses that failed such tests were eventually discarded, no matter how wonderful they might have seemed to be.”

Then Ferris makes the point that engineers do make errors which are obvious and which they correct, on their way to providing longer, healthier, more productive lives for humanity, while increasing knowledge, wealth, and happiness. He gives statistics which are not important to the argument, but are evidence as subpremises.

But Ferris is not done with the mongers of untethered ideas. First he roundly trashes the output of those who deal in ideas rather than in facts. According to Ferris, the factless idea-mongers have come up with some hideous and massively deadly ideologies. Then he makes his misstep: he mentions names (Hitler). He should know that he cannot get away with that. No matter if that is actually the subject matter of his point. Undeterred by internet rules, Ferris charges ahead with tallies of human deaths brought about by the “ideas” of Communism and Fascism. Says Ferris, channeling Massimo's coming response:

” That this is not more widely known and appreciated, but instead is so often brushed aside as somehow irrelevant to the argument at hand, demonstrates the extent to which the dead hand of ideology still grips many a mind.

Comparing the consequences of the two competitors, Ferris makes this conclusion:

” Needless to say, this verdict has not yet been taken to heart by all ideologues. Basing one’s opinions on facts is, after all, hard work, and less immediately gratifying than fuming with intellectual fervor. Hence the far left continues to attack free trade and the pharmaceuticals industry, no matter how many people’s lives have been improved or saved thereby, while the far right rejects every scientific finding that trespasses on its presuppositions, from biological evolution to global warming.”

Then he makes his main point:

” What is fading, it seems to me, is not the world of ideas but the celebration of big, pretentious ideas untethered to facts. That world has fallen out of favor because fact-starved ideas, when put into practice, produced indefensible amounts of human suffering, and because we today know a lot more facts than was the case back when a Freud could be ranked with an Einstein.”

Massimo Pigliucci is not pleased with Ferris or his post. In a rebuttal, Massimo spends two paragraphs in Ad Hominem and Well Poisoning before even addressing the ideas in Ferris’ article. Ferris’ article is

” a quasi incoherent rant”, and

” a stereotypical piece of anti-intellectualism, and

” Richard Hofstadter (the sociologist who authored the classic Anti-intellectualism in American Life) could have used him as a poster boy. Hofstadter defined anti-intellectualism as “a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life.” Indeed, Hofstadter even identified the precise category of anti-intellectualism to which Ferris’ rant belongs: instrumentalism, or the idea that only practical knowledge matters and should be cultivated. In America, the attitude traces its roots to the robber barons of the 19th century, as exemplified by the attitude of Andrew Carnegie about classical studies: a waste of “precious years trying to extract education from an ignorant past.”

This of course, is not the concept which Ferris uses to attack intellectualizing. Massimo proceeds to completely ignore the fatal concept which Ferris presents - the untethered thinking of the intellectualizers. Instead, Massimo accuses Ferris of Scientism, and a "resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind". This is false, and it is a Red Herring used to draw us away from Ferris' actual point.

And, Ferris engages in

” cherry picking examples, distorting history, and simply ignoring what is not convenient for his thesis.”

Massimo’s third paragraph is hardly better, stooping to mentioning Montaigne as the inventor of the writing style which Ferris should not wish to be compared with. A slam on the style? Really, Massimo? And then, the Ferris article is

”standard fare among scientistically inclined people”

So five paragraphs in, the only actual, factual complaint is that Ferris didn’t treat Rousseau with respect, but instead identified some of his disciples. It is not until paragraph #6 that Massimo makes a direct charge: Ferris has created a Straw Man: intellectuals have also created some good things, too. At least Massimo says he thinks so.

Massimo:

” capitalism and democracies are also the result of “armchair speculations” by intellectuals, from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill, not to mention the founding fathers of the United States of America.”

All of a sudden these things are favored by the intelligentsia? When did that happen? (Hint: only when an argument can benefit from it).

”And part of the reason science is so well regarded these days is because of the preparatory groundwork work laid out by the intellectuals of the French Enlightenment, including some of Rousseau’s strongest critics, like Voltaire.”

This is not true. Science was valued long before the hideous French Revolution. Descartes, Locke, Bacon, Boyle, Newton, and many others pursued science completely independently of, and well before, the French Enlightenment. Plus it is difficult to think of the French Enlightenment without images of the guillotine being applied to all of those who were not favored by the “enlightened”.

” While science has without a doubt made our lives more comfortable and last significantly longer, it has had relatively little directly to do with the development of the above mentioned ideas, which are the true backbone of the progressive society that Ferris praises so much.”

The claim the Rousseau was responsible for them is equally false. And the untethered, circular reasoning of the encyclopedists is also not responsible for them. Mill was born nearly three decades after the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and was not responsible for democracy in the least. And Adam Smith influenced Marx. So the self-righteous claim to high value for intellectualism is a hard case to make.

” Moreover, science itself has been the handmaiden and enabler of much pernicious ideology, beginning with the technological efficiency with which fascism and communism were able to kill tens of millions of people during the 20th century.”

This is both an admission to pernicious ideology and a weak Tu Quoque, so weak as to be ludicrous, of course. “Handmaiden? Enabler?” To place any blame on “science” for the ideological decisions of the leaders of Fascism and Communism is absurd in the extreme. Do we blame shower heads for the gassing of millions of Jews, Gypsies and other minorities? Do we blame locks for securing them in the fake showers? Do we blame pliers for pulling out their gold teeth? Technology was not the cause for the racist, eugenic horror. Technology was, in fact, a tool of the ideologists; but technology also aided in the defeat of these ideological terrors; technology is ideologically neutral. Massimo's attempt to smear technology is, well, it's just a smear.

The anti-science counter-attack by Massimo is nothing more than an emotional reaction to the attack launched by Ferris. Massimo takes it seriously enough to have constructed a thoroughly venomous and Ad Hominem counter attack. Ferris is right about one thing, although in incorrect terms: Intellectualism is untethered. It is not only untethered to the factoids produced by science, it is also untethered to any axioms or First Principles that might be useful in determining the validity or coherence of the arguments being made. And Massimo never even mentions this concept, which was the main point of Ferris' article, much less does he try to refute it. Rather Massimo makes war on minor points and non-points, and makes an arrogant and self-righteous stand... facing the wrong way.

And that is the real difference between engineering and intellectualism. Engineering is not just well grounded in the laws of physics, it is also well grounded in procedures for determining the validity of each prototype in functioning, functioning well, and not functioning in any deleterious fashion.

Not so intellectualism. There is nothing more to intellectualism than the opinion of whoever is opining (in this case, Massimo). There are no axioms that are acceptable to these opiners. Thus, their arguments are either circular, infinite regresses, or no effort is made to substantiate them whatsoever – they are taken to be valid by virtue of the grandness of the opiner.

But being untethered (that’s a good word, Ferris), they have no value as fact or truth or anything other than merely opinion of some person somewhere. Engineering, on the other hand, produces tested products, products which are modified if they fail the tests and are made more robust until they pass the tests. Name a philosophy or opinion that has that to its credit.

Massimo is not really anti-science. He claims science to be on his side, but the science he claims is as ungrounded as his other opinions. Massimo comes from a background of theoretical evolution, where making up “plausible” stories counts as science. So he is right at home in philosophical opining since it is the same skill set.

Massimo, then, has not been subject to any of the consequences of his product, and that is the final difference between engineers and philosopher / intellectualizers. Engineers are constantly aware of the consequences of what they do, on the society which receives their technology, and on themselves if their intellectual efforts are faulty. Not only are their products tested constantly, so are the intellectual specifics which go into them.

With philosopher – intellectualizers, there is not any objective testing until a concept is implemented on an unwary and unlucky populace. And when an implemented concept fails, the intellectual denials begin: it wasn’t implemented right; it wasn’t enough; the implementers were biased; there’s a vast right wing conspiracy, yada yada. Consequences for failure of intellectualized projects are borne purely by those who are burdened with the failed concept – never the conceivers, the ideologists.

All through this intellectuals remain confident in their superior abilities to determine the right and righteous paths to a better society. Not to mention their moral obligation to do so.


To recoup, engineers and philosopher – intellectualizers differ in important ways:

1. Engineers work upward from basic axioms, trusted physical laws, and valid prior engineering developments which are reducible to the basic axioms.

Philosopher – intellectualizers reject the concept that there are basic axioms, so they produce opinions which are based on circular arguments, infinite regresses, or no validation attempt at all. In fact, as Massimo shows, logical fallacies are sometimes served as intellectual pablum, and are swallowed easily and without consequence by sympathizers. Smarmy self-righteousness can cover for being groundless.

2. Engineers use skepticism as a method of analysis, for example double checking against basic principles in design reviews by objective peers, and producing prototypes for testing before producing final products; skepticism is not an absolute worldview.

For Philosopher – intellectualizers, Skepticism is a tool also, but for them it is a tool for repressing contrary notions by asserting that “you cannot know that”, and sure enough, ungrounded competition can’t be known when pressed hard enough, Skeptically. But then comes the paradox: neither can the original argument, nor for that matter, the value of skepticism itself.

3. For engineering, the value of a logical basis is demonstrable materially. If the engineering has been illogical, it will fail at the prototype testing level, if it wasn't caught in the design reviews. For engineers, illogic has consequences.

For Philosopher - intellectualizers, logic is claimed of course, but the application is optional. There is no amount of material testing that will reveal the illogic of pure ideas, until the actual implementation either succeeds or fails, and the consequence of that lies with the victims of the implementation.

4. Consequences of illogic for the engineer are tangible: he will incur failure at prototype and the pressure to rectify the logical input.

Consequences to the Philosopher – intellectualizer are practically none. Failures are always someone else’s fault.

5. Moral content. Engineering is morally neutral. Moral content is provided by the ideology of the user of the technology.

The product of the Philosopher – intellectualizer is generally a form of moral content: “society should do X in order flourish”. So these products have a direct moral consequence.

6. Materialist Content. Engineering is purely materialist, and voluntarily so. But not Philosophical Materialist, which is an irrational extension of voluntary materialism.

Philosophy – intellectualizing is not materialist in the least, because it does not use physical facts or axioms, and it uses physics only as a comparison for analogies, not as a direct source of evidence.

So, oddly, engineering, while materialist, is not Philosophically Materialist, and Philosophy – intellectualizing is Philosophically Materialist but uses no material evidence.

In short, engineering is grounded both logically and materially; philosophy and intellectualizing are not grounded, either logically or materially, but are relative to the person doing the opining.

It’s understandable that Massimo is irritated; the curtain of intellectualism is being drawn back and there is no grounding behind it.