So PZ declares his own ethic-du-jour:
PZ:
"In the absence of a god-given absolute morality, all that matters is how we treat one another in this one life we have. What flows naturally to me is not brutality, which requires an absence of awareness of the suffering of others, but recognition of the fact that my fellow human beings really are my equals: we're all going to die, we only have these few brief decades of life, and who am I to deny someone else the same opportunities I've been given?"
PZ, as do most Atheists, sees no contradiction in taking the words of Christ for his own ("Love your neighbor….") and then both denying the source and decrying the source as immoral. But I see no reason to believe that PZ actually believes in that ethic; his words belie that completely. For one thing, he supports abortion which does, in fact deny ALL opportunities to the immature human being formed, but killed. So that part is a lie.
PZ:
"I can at least say that my ideal society would not be led by an autocrat who thought power was a sufficient justification for his actions, the conclusion Daniels thinks is natural for atheists, nor do I think that a culture built around obedience to tradition, as interpreted by a tribunal of priests, is my idea of a desirable society. And I'm an atheist. Why would a mindless ratbag politician like Daniels think that my dream world would be led by a dictator?"
PZ, who has previously claimed a personal socialist philosophy far to the Left of Obama (positive rights, remember?) now claims that he doesn’t want an autocrat in charge. PZ seems to claim whatever is convenient at the moment. This is confirmed with his statement that"There is no eternal standard of right and wrong." Of course not. PZ has always both adhered to, and denied that he adheres to, the Nietzschean conclusion that ethics are vaporous, and that First Principles are deniable – thus abrogating logic in favor of heated rhetoric in the manner of a Lenin.
He declares that "We should build our morality on reason." There is no reason to think that this is anything other than a declaration for philosophical Consequentialism. Further, Consequentialism cannot work in a culture that has any freedom left at all; it must be administered by an elite class, one with sufficient power (yes, power) to force its decisions on the populace, without reverse consequences for the elites.
What PZ seems to mean here is that it is not OK to have a governor that is not an Atheist, Consequentialist, Amoralist, elitist.
I do believe that PZ sees no moral right and wrong. And that he feels free to make up his ethical rights and wrongs as he goes, a situational, Consequentialist ethic of momentary convenience. And because of that, PZ and his followers are potentially dangerous, being deluded, irrational, and juvenile, operating without a stable, overarching meta-ethic.
19 comments:
What a retarded little rant. PZ doesn't refer to the words of your jeebus. Being more liberal than Obama (who's no liberal by my standards) means you should promote autocracy? What? Consequentialism must be administered by an elite class? What? PZ says it's not OK to have a non-atheist governor? What?
Are you sure you were ever an atheist? By that I mean, did you ever put thought to your position, at all? Your post suggests you did no such thing.
Sure but let's take the dribble one drip at a time.
1) PZ says to be nice to one another, a purloined take off on "love one another", which is the fundamental Christian tenet for ethical treatment of other humans.
2) It's hard to be more liberal than to believe in "positive rights": only those rights which are specifically allowed by the state. This is Obama's own belief system, and it is autocratic. It is true that Obama is both that kind of liberal and also totally corrupted from that liberalism by money-lust for himself and his cronies - which is why philosophical Lefitists are coming to hate him.
3)Consequentialism cannot be administered to people who are independent. It must be forced on them, because they realize that it doesn't work in their favor, it works in the favor of classes selected for their "value" as determined by the elite autocracy.
4) PZ is expressly perturbed by a governor who would take such positions: for him it is not OK.
5) I was definitely an Atheist. When I started to examine Atheism using actual logic rather than the rhetoric so common to Atheist reductionists and name callers, I saw that it did not hold up to rational scrutiny under the First Principles and logical thought. This requires an open mind, willing to examine all evidence and realities, not just those material and physical objects allowed by the false limits of Philosophical Materialism.
I would not expect that most Atheists are capable of surrendering their intellectual limitations in the pursuit of actual truth instead of physical facts and myriad presuppositions which infest their thinking, however, because such a journey is jolting to the personal self-view as well as the personal world-view. However a fulfilled intellectual would do so.
Hi Stan,
Regarding your point (5) above, you say you rejected atheism (by which, presumably, you mean materialism) because of logic.
Can I ask then why you have so fervently embraced Christianity?
Was that also based on logic?
1) The golden rule predates christianity (confucianism, buddhism, etc), so you can't claim PZ is referring to the words of your jesus.
2) Oh look, a birther-esque Obama rant. Care to back up any of the claims you've made?
3) You can't enforce morality to begin with, so what are you on about? Apart from that, you're the one who put up the consequentialism straw man, PZ never said the morality of an action depends on the consequences.
4) PZ is perturbed by the words and actions of this governor, not because he's not an atheist.
5) How can not having the belief that deities exist not hold up to scrutiny? You'd have to present undeniable evidence that deities exist for that to be the case, and such evidence does not exist.
Funny that you mention presuppositions, you seem to be full of them.
What happened to "not resorting to theism or fantasy", by the way?
In response to (-) above:
1. Right. Religious tenets. Christ was the latest.
2. I claim the right to know that a potential and /or sitting president meets the U. S. Constitutional standards of citizenship required to hold office. You should be concerned: if he turns out not to satisfy those requirements, every action he takes will be null and void, including signing all the Democratic legislation into law. Do you seriously think he can withhold his birth information forever?
3. Most laws governing behavior are, in fact, regulating according to a moral ethic (don't kill, etc).
4. PZ is particular perturbed that the governor pointed out the Nietzscean relationship between rejection of the authority of a deity and the "will to power".
5. The belief that there is no deity contradicts the Materialist requirement that every proposition have an empirical validation; it cannot be proved. Don't bother with the "no diety belief" subterfuge; Atheists believe that there is no deity. Agnostics have "no deity belief", not Atheists. Atheists have no proof of their position.
6. Presuppostions: an empty charge without examples. Either give examples for discussion or stop pissing in the wind.
7. The reference to Christ and other religions was a reference to the illogic of PZ's statement.
Anything else?
Matt,
There are two types of uses for rational principles. First there is the necessity of determining the coherence of observations of objective reality. Second, there is the necessity of determining the coherence of observations in subjective reality.
The scientific method has laid claim to study – coherently if done right – objective reality. This is right and proper.
Subjective reality, on the other hand, is not subject to empirical methods, and is not discovered through examining objective reality spaces. Subjective reality must be intuited. An example of intuiting subjective realities is the examination of the First Principles of logic and rational thought. These principles are not physical, having no size, weight, length or width, wavelength or particle size, etc. Yet one can discern the coherence and validity of these principles.
Religions in general exist in subjective space. In that sense they are also First Principles. So the task at hand is to determine, for oneself, intuitively and rationally, which, if any of the religions are coherent. This is not an objective task, one that can be tested with instrumentation, replicated, falsified, etc. The scientific method has no meaning regarding First Principles (except that it is based on similar First Principles which are also not material).
Since the validity of First Principles is not determined scientifically, but is determined intuitively, then it comes to every individual to examine the coherence of each religion for coherence and meaning.
My purpose in this blog is not to guide anyone into thinking that they have no responsibility for this process, nor do I prescribe any particular outcome of this process to be dogmatically correct. Yet the process itself appears to me to be another First Principle of sorts, one that might be stated, “A closed intellect cannot discern meaning that is rejected a priori; an open intellect must challenge all precepts for coherence, including the existence of only material reality.” That’s off the cuff, I might elaborate that in the future.
1) No, your jesus wasn't the latest. Something as simple as looking up Golden Rule on wikipedia would have taught you that.
2) Yes, like I said, unsubstantiated anti-Obama rant. Care to back any of it up yet?
3) Laws do not and can not enforce or administer morality, which is what you were talking about. Nice red herring
4) You said, and I quote, "PZ seems to mean here is that it is not OK to have a governor that is not an Atheist, Consequentialist, Amoralist, elitist" while he made no such claim.
5) Look up "weak atheism" please. Agnosticism does not mean not having the belief that deities exist, agnosticism is a position regarding knowledge, not belief. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, in fact.
6) No, that's not what presupposition means.
7) Thanks for admitting that you do in fact resort to theism.
I've rarely seen such a high logical fallacy/words ratio on a blog. Are you participating in some sort of competition?
You say that religions exist in a subjective space.
Doesn't it follow from that observation that religions should never seek to impose their (subjective) will on anyone who doesn't share their faith?
Matt, the word "should" is an imperative, which means that there is a moral injunction attached. So to say "never do (x)" is a moral injunction.
Perhaps you are trying to say that religions are violating their own moral imperatives, or perhaps you are claiming a moral imperative against their behavior.
If you are saying that they are violating their own moral imperatives, then you are correct if you are referring to Christianity but not for Islam.
If you are saying that they are violating your moral imperative, then I can say nothing more about that.
Perhaps you are claiming that they work outside logical boundaries. There can be no question of that, especially in hierarchical ecclesiatical arrangements.
I'm not sure I covered everything, but maybe you'd care to expand your question?
(-):
1. You are quibbling about nothing. PZ stated his version of a religious tenet. BTW, do you really use Wikipedia??
2. That makes no sense. Read what I wrote.
3. Laws can and do enforce morality every day. You are working from a sound bite or a bumper sticker slogan, not from from empirical evidence.
4. I said, and you quote, "seems to mean". I did not say he said it specifically. But I bet he would.
5. Weak Atheism is a dodge to avoid owning up to the belief in no deity. It is intellectually dishonest. Care to discuss why?
6. Sheesh. I didn't define presupposition, I said that your charge of presupposition is empty without examples. It is still empty.
7. I did no such thing.
8. Another baseless snark, substituting for substance. If you want to discuss specifics, then make specific charges. If you want to look foolish, make blanket charges without substance.
1) I showed your claim that PZ was using the words of your jesus to be false. I showed your claim that your jesus was the last one to use those words to also be false. Now you appear to claim that reciprocal altruism is a religious tenet and nothing else. Do you want me to disprove that one too?
The wikipedia article on the golden rule is sourced, by the way.
2) I did read what you wrote, an unsubstantiated anti-obama rant.
3) No, laws can't enforce morality, laws can enforce only behaviour, not whether or not someone thinks that behaviour is right or wrong (which is what morality is, after all).
It's funny that someone who was ranting on about consequentialism is now saying that you can enforce morality by threatening people with consequences.
4) You bet he would? That's not an argument. Back up your claims or admit you're making unsubstantiated claims.
5) No, weak atheism is not a dodge, it's a philosophical position regarding the existence of gods.
The phrase "belief in no deity" makes no sense.
Care to discuss why? Excuse me? You're the one making claims without backing them up here.
You know what I think is a dodge? You ignoring me correcting you on the meaning of agnosticism. Care to admit you were talking nonsense yet?
6) Fine, if you didn't attempt to define presuppositions the phrase "Presuppostions: an empty charge without examples" doesn't make any sense.
7) I'm getting a Ray Comfort deja vu here.
8) No, that was an observation. Your blog posts consist of bare assertions, red herrings, ad hominems, non sequiturs and straw man arguments.
It's pretty hilarious that you're now accusing ME of making blanket charges without substance. There's a beam in your eye, you'd better take care of that.
One last attempt:
1. Reciprocal Altruism is a made-up behavioral theory which like most evo-psycho and evo-devo cannot be proven empirically, yet is taken as empirical truth.
The idea that we should treat each other well is actually a "should" type of moral imperative, not an empirical declarative. It is therefore a religious, or at a minimum a philosophical ethics proposition, not a scientific finding. A Materialist Atheist cannot coherently claim that morals don't exist, and then also claim a set of morals; that is self-contradictory.
It is true that PZ did not refer to Jesus or any religion when he made his moral (religious) statement, which as you acknowledge is historically based in religions, and which I assert is a religious tenet in and of itself, not being empirical.
2. Perhaps you should read Article 2, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution. Perhaps Obama satisfies that, or perhaps not. You do not know either, because Obama has successfully withheld that information and has not been forced to prove his compliance. These are facts. That you don't care about these facts doesn't change their existence as facts.
3. Your argument here seems to be that laws cannot regulate mental activities, rather than laws cannot regulate physical adherence to legal behavior. That is not the purpose of law, however, and is not the point, of course.
You said,
"You can't enforce morality to begin with, so what are you on about? Apart from that, you're the one who put up the consequentialism straw man, PZ never said the morality of an action depends on the consequences."
Enforcing morality is not the same thing as enforcing mental processes; enforcing behavior to moral standards happens every day. That is the subject: behavior.
Consequentialism is the dominant natural outcome of "rational ethic". It is the ethic behind abortion, which is the reason for the "Pharyngula" name of PZ's blog, and PZ's claim that certain stages of human development are not to be valued as persons and may be destroyed for the convenience of whoever.
Of course it is also easy to claim that PZ has no moral ethic, period. Or that PZ's ethic changes to fit the situation. Just about any argument concerning Atheist ethic will be sourced from Consequentialism, including reciprocal altruism.
(Comment split into two parts due to space limitations on Blogger: see next comment)
(Continued from previous Comment)
5. OK here we go.
There are several possibilities concerning the potential Atheist's knowledge and/or claim of a position regarding the existence of a deity:
a.) The person has no knowledge that there is a question concerning the existence of a deity. This person has no position on the subject.
b.) The person has new knowledge that there is a question concerning the existence of a deity. This person is either investigating out of interest or ignoring out of disinterest. If investigating, the person temporarily is an agnostic, without a position yet on the answer.
If the person is ignoring the question, then that person remains ignorant and has no position - and will not likely take part in a discussion of the subject.
c) The person has thought about the possibility of a deity and makes no decision; this person is an agnostic, having no God theory.
d.) The person has thought about the possibility of a deity and rejects that possibility. This person is an Atheist.
The person either ignores the issue of a deity, or develops a viewpoint; if the view point is neutral (without answer), the person is agnostic. If the viewpoint is negative (no deity), the person is Atheist.
It is not rational to claim that a person who has rejected the possibility of a deity has "no deity theory" or position. That claim is a recently developed subterfuge, devised specifically to avoid having to rationally assess the Atheist position. This is necessary, of course, because the basic assumptions of Atheism become invalidated when confronted head-on rationally, because a negative cannot be proven. The positive statement, "there is no deity" cannot be proven, and this is a problem for Atheists who claim a rational, empirical basis for their belief. It undermines the credibility of both the belief and the ability of their knowledge system to cover all of reality. So they hide the belief behind a false statement: I have no god theory. This is a theft of the position of Agnosticism in order to cover for the intellectual weakness of Atheism.
Another example, the Atheist position that there is no intelligent cause for the laws of the universe via the Big Bang cannot be proven empirically. This is a logical hole in the Atheist presumption of rationality via Materialism and Empiricism. The Atheist cannot prove "no deity", so he claims that that is not his position. But as shown above, that cannot be his position.
6. I re-wrote it for you. I'll do so again: your charge of my discussion being based on presuppostions is without any stated examples for discussion, and is therefore empty.
If you do not understand that statement, I'll try again.
7. You are displaying the weakness of resorting to Ad Hominem.
8. You continue to make empty charges.
I have answered all your issues; it is now up to you to back up your final charges with specifics, so that they can be discussed openly, not just in blanket charges which amount to smears. So delineate a statement, and a fallacy associated with that statement, and we'll discuss it.
1) No, I'm sorry, reciprocal altruism is also a term used in Game Theory, and it's not taken as empirical truth. You simply don't know what you're talking about, making nonsensical claims, and you're not actually responding to my previous statement.
"which I assert" is, just like "it seems to me", not an argument. You really have to do better than that.
2) "Obama satisfies that, or perhaps not"? Oh look, more nonsensical banter.
3) No, behaviour wasn't the subject, morality was.
The rest of your statements under 3 are just more unsubstantiated claims. Back them up if you actually expect people to respond.
4) You neglected to reply to this one. This is another example of you dodging the issue when I point out you're making claims you don't back up.
5a) Actually, not having the belief that deities exist IS a philosophical position.
5b) You still don't seem to understand what agnosticism means. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it's a position regarding knowledge (gnosis).
5c) Idem, you simply don't know what the term agnostic means.
Care to back up your definition of agnosticism up with actual verifiable evidence yet? No? Thought so.
5d) Oh wow, you finally got something right. Congratulations. Doesn't change the fact that anyone lacking the belief that deities exist is an atheist.
"the Atheist position that there is no intelligent cause"
First, there's no capital A in atheism. Second, this is not an atheist position. Again, back your bare assertions up with evidence, please.
6) Your definition of atheism, agnosticism, your rants about Obama, all of them are full of presuppositions.
7) No, that wasn't a deja vu, apparently you're unaware of the meaning of that term too. I can't say I'm surprised. An ad hominem is a basically a statement that an opponent is wrong because [insert irrelevant personal attack here]. I did not do that, I was referring to you denying that you use theism while you just referred to your jesus.
8) Gosh, Mr. Bare Assertion himself is telling me I'm making empty charges. Hilarious.
You haven't actually answered any of my issues. Hand waving is not the same as answering, and neither are those bare assertions and non sequiturs, or claims like "it seems to me" and "I bet he would".
Thanks, Stan. That answered my question.
(It was your first response, by the way ... that Christianity violates its own principles by imposing its will on others.)
Another question: you mentioned that coherence was important your decision to embrace Christianity.
Do you consider coherence to be just a necessary condition, or is it a sufficient condition? (Or maybe both?)
And, are you claiming that Christianity is the most coherent non-Atheist alternative available?
(-)said,
1. So if reciprocal altruism is "not empirical truth" (which you apparently agree with me) why are you arguing it? Are you arguing just be arguing?
2. Makes no sense.
3. Read a little about the Red vs. White Army campaigns in the Russian revolution. Read a little about the policies of social elimination of Lenin through Stalin. This is basic stuff.
4. Your distortions are catching up with you here. I already gave an example.
5. I've been through "weak" Atheism many times before. It is a new dodge for the reasons I enumerated. Redefining words is a cheesy way out of a logical dilemma.
Atheism is a positive belief in the non-existence of a deity, an unprovable tenet regarding religion; moreover Atheism is locked into Philophical Materialism which also cannot be proved. Believing in something that cannot be proved is religion; I and others capitalize religions, including the religion of Atheism.
Your claim that Atheism does not claim the non-existence of an intelligent first cause, is absurd.
Fallacies and presuppositions: Specify the exact statement, and the fallacy, or quit the nonsense.
7. "I was referring to you denying that you use theism while you just referred to your jesus."
Then that is what you should have said. Your illogical thinking is that my claim that another person is referring to religious tenets is itself theology, fails. And it fails at the most basic level. There is no theological tenet stated or proposed. (You do realize that other people read what you write, don't you?)
8. That you do not accept any answers does not concern me in the least. BTW, ridicule is the intellectual domain of children, most of whom give it up as they mature. It is not in the least impressive, much less convincing of anything other than maturity level.
Now. You are wasting my time. Either engage in specific charges for the purpose of debate, or this thread will be terminated. If you need guidance with how to engage in specifics, say so and I will help you.
1) Reciprocal altruism is merely another name for the golden rule, that's why I brought it up. Your blathering about empirical truth makes no sense in the context of morality.
2) Indeed, you made no sense. Glad we agree on something.
3) And again you neglect to back up your claims or actually reply to what I said. I'll just repeat myself: the subject was morality, not behaviour.
4) Another unsubstantiated claim that makes no sense. You gave no example, you said "I bet he would". That's not an argument.
5) Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) isn't new. By saying I'm redefining words you're merely repeating your previous claim, not backing it up like I've asked you to.
"Believing in something that cannot be proved is religion"
Another preposterous claim. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. According to you that would be a religion.
Saying my claim is absurd isn't evidence that your claims are correct.
7) "There is no theological tenet stated or proposed"
So you did not in fact refer to the golden rule and claimed anyone paraphrasing it was borrowing words from your jesus? Are you sure about that? People can read what you wrote, you know.
8) Oh, I know it doesn't concern you. If it concerned you you'd actually substantiate your claims instead of saying things like "I assert", "there is no reason to think this is anything other than" or "it seems to me".
About ridicule and name-calling, the entire blog post I'm replying to is an attempt to ridicule PZ Myers, isn't it? Sentences like "PZ seems to claim whatever is convenient at the moment", "PZ has always both adhered to, and denied that he adheres to, the Nietzschian conclusion that ethics are vaporous ... thus abrogating logic in favor of heated rhetoric in the manner of a Lenin", "PZ and his followers are potentially dangerous, being deluded, irrational, and juvenile", etc prove that you yourself are guilty of something you just called childish and immature and should have grown out of by now.
Matt
”Do you consider coherence to be just a necessary condition, or is it a sufficient condition? (Or maybe both?)”
This is a very good question. Coherence is not the only criterion. It is the first-sort criterion though. When dealing with non-empirical issues, those where the only real input beyond rational testing of objective reality is intuition, then intuition of completeness, of wholeness, of unavoidable validity is the main remaining sort. Because this is a personal journey and not a group examination of objective physical characteristics, it rapidly gets beyond any general description that any single person can give to any other person.
It did, for me, require study of religions and continuing study. With science, every answer generates more questions, and that is the case with religion, too, except in the case of religion, many of the answers are permanently out of our league. But for me, just knowing the questions and the probable answers - given a rational universe with a rational originator - gives a baseline of sufficiency.
It is interesting to me that religion involves the presumption of a rational universe and a rational originator, while science presumes a rational universe without a rational originator, and presumes further that the universe itself generated the scientist who presumes himself rational. With religion the chain of rationality is unbroken; with science, the chain of rationality is not only broken, it is accidental, having come through several highly improbable accidents.
”And, are you claiming that Christianity is the most coherent non-Atheist alternative available?”
Not Christianity as a dogmatic, hierarchical ecclesiastical organization. Not Christianity as a denominationally fractured body of individuals claiming diverse interpretations of Truth(s). But yes, the personal intuitive internal contact with a higher authority, a dimensionally unencumbered first cause, an overarching moral authority - as discussed linearly in the bible and not (for example) the Qu’ran, nor as represented by 300 million terra cotta gods of Hinduism, nor the “becoming one” with nothing as in Buddhism. Even without the bible, the conclusion would be drawn in that direction, as a coherent conclusion. But the bible coheres as well.
(-):
You seem to be making only two points, and those on a continuous basis:
a). No argument against PZ's position is an actual argument in your opinion, so every statement has to be a fallacy, a presupposition etc, without any other reason. This, you feel, is conclusive, since it can't be argued against (having no specifics such as statement:fallacy:presuppostion underlying the fallacy). But this is not an argument in the sense of pursuing logic, it is a tactic to stifle debate.
b). A dissection of PZ's position is now ridicule according to you, a tit for tat, and just more absurdity.
Here's the thing (-); I have a lot of genuine discussion with intelligent, thoughtful Atheists. These folks respond to rational debates with rational discussions.
You on the other hand are engaging in childish bushwhacking. I have given you calm answers to which you respond with absurd attacks.
So this is enough. I will now begin to eliminate your comments. This thread - from your standpoint - is permanently closed.
Post a Comment