tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4807913627863993596..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: revised chapter for commentsStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43054010742680393472010-10-13T20:18:51.123+00:002010-10-13T20:18:51.123+00:00Am I right in thinking that this is Rene Descartes...Am I right in thinking that this is Rene Descartes ‘evil genie’ thought experiment of 350 years ago that is being alluded to here? I have closely followed the whole God debate but the only time that I have ever heard Descartes argument being used was not to go nuclear but to argue, as John Lennox did, that atheism dissolves science like acid, and this was early on in the debate with Richard Dawkins.<br /><br />Given that both the theist and atheist relies on their senses, I agree that the 'going nuclear' argument (if you really must call it that) is a cop-out but only with the proviso that the deist/theist does have more reason to believe that his senses can be trusted. After all, he believes that the universe was created by an external agent and not by chaos. Both theists and atheists believe that something (meaning matter) emerged from nothing. After all, I think it was a monk who first came up with the idea of the big bang. As Pascal pointed out, however, pure intellectual ratiocination can only inevitably lead either to deism or to atheism, not to theism. All I’m getting at is that there is les of a gap than you might suggest in the thinking between those who do and do not believe in God when it comes to the beginning of life, and also that attempts to anthromorphise God are mostly irrelevant to the argument.<br /><br />I was initially a little shocked that you seem to imply that the problem of suffering constitutes an argument against the existence of God, especially given the presence of libraries of books and essays on theodicy. As the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledged, the problem of suffering at most causes us to re-evaluate our attitude towards God. Any theist who loses his faith after deciding that the creator and ruler of the universe is an ogre should logically move to Gnosticism or agnosticism, not to atheism. At any rate, it is a very weak refutation of Descartes argument. To show why, I’d like to imagine a conversation:<br /><br />Theist: “The order in the universe, and the fact that I can understand that order, suggests to me that it was created by a deity, and one who wishes to know me and to communicate with me. ” You don’t believe in such a deity, so how can you trust your senses?<br />Stephen Law: “Well the obvious question is who created that deity, but leaving that aside, doesn’t the suffering – tsunamis, earthquakes, fatal illnesses – suggest that he isn’t a very nice chap”<br />Theist: “You may be onto something there, I have to say. But what difference does that make?”<br />Stephen Law: “Well it makes it less likely that he’s seeking to know you, and therefore that your senses are reliable.”<br />Theist: “Well, yes, maybe so, though it could be that he does wish for my senses to be intact so that I can be fully conscious of the suffering to which he is subjecting me. Besides, the hypothesis that God is wicked has no bearing on whether the universe itself makes sense. We agree that we both have to rely on our senses to understand the universe, but the suggestion that God may be a monster has no bearing on whether he can cut the mustard in terms of creating a universe that makes sense”.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-890299064058326042010-10-09T14:38:29.445+00:002010-10-09T14:38:29.445+00:00My apologies; my comment above should have include...My apologies; my comment above should have included my id Pascal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88933316181955039962010-10-09T14:36:27.585+00:002010-10-09T14:36:27.585+00:00Actually, you think I am a troll metaphorically, n...Actually, you think I am a troll metaphorically, not actually, and since I share your aversion to people who talk entirely in capital letters, I make it a rule never to do so myself. <br /><br />What is interesting is the way you instinctively reach for an example a long way away from you; had you referred to philosophers dropping like flies in Kensington it might suggest that you had devoted at least a few nano-seconds of thought to the matter. Instead you are simply reassuring yourself that nasty things may happen to other people, but they won‘t happen to you.<br /><br />On the other hand, you are geographically well situated should you ever wish to engage your brain on this; the Royal Brompton is just down the road, and their host defence unit would, I am sure, be happy to explain that for some of their patients the antibiotic era has already ended, and, since we have never had any decent antivirals in the first place, the outlook on that is not good either. Opportunistic pathogens do not confine themselves to poor people in poor countries, however much relatively affluent philosophers in Kensington may wish to believe otherwise…Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66964064148016474552010-10-08T15:18:19.960+00:002010-10-08T15:18:19.960+00:00Probably for another chapter, maybe not for the bo...Probably for another chapter, maybe not for the book at all, but Melanie Philips has come up with a wonderful quote here:<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1317490/Druids-official-religion-Stones-Praise-come.html<br /><br />Speaking of the Druid religion she says:<br /><br /><i>How on earth has our supposedly rational society come to subscribe to so much totally barking mumbo-jumbo?</i><br /><br />Maybe you need a new chapter: "Projection, much?"Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31915979072720029302010-10-08T15:06:22.284+00:002010-10-08T15:06:22.284+00:00Ah yes, Pascal. I have heard that one a million ti...Ah yes, Pascal. I have heard that one a million times before. "How dare you discuss X, Y, or Z when CHILDREN ARE STARVING IN AFRICA!"<br /><br />I think you're a troll actually.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87718699386157029692010-10-06T22:56:42.081+00:002010-10-06T22:56:42.081+00:00This is just so very depressing; our species is st...This is just so very depressing; our species is staring down the locked and loaded double barrels of anthropogenic global warming and the end of the antibiotic era, issues which surely any humanist worthy of the name would consider of overriding importance, not least because they will certainly result in a great deal fewer human beings on our planet.<br /><br />Instead of tackling them you are debating going nuclear as a metaphor, not the real going nuclear of countries which will use their nukes to try to grab some share of the diminishing resources of a world which cannot sustain anything like the present human population. <br /><br />I appreciate that, in terms of historical fact, it is improbable that Nero fiddled whilst Rome burned, but you are providing an excellent example of the mindset that would have enabled him to do so...pascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06163257887071459639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45391928101997911982010-10-05T04:40:48.327+00:002010-10-05T04:40:48.327+00:00Bogdan- People generally mean one of two different...Bogdan- People generally mean one of two different things when they say that.<br /><br />The first is the way you seem to have interpreted it- that humans invented logic, and before us nothing was logical.<br /><br />But the second is that humans formulated the so-called "rules" of logic by inventing axiomatic statements based on analysis of the world around them.<br /><br />The latter is an attempt at trying to address the latent platonism that sometimes plagues modern thinking. Some people seem to believe that the "rules of logic" exist in some kind of ethereal realm of timeless eternal truth, next door to numbers and down the street from god. This is almost certainly incorrect, and getting people to understand that the "rules of logic" aren't eternal things, but rather bits of a system of reasoning we invented to describe the universe, is part of breaking them out of this weird, retro philosophy.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36841298891432930332010-10-01T19:06:51.390+00:002010-10-01T19:06:51.390+00:00I recently had a discussion with someone and when ...I recently had a discussion with someone and when things started to go bad for him he said that logic is an invention of mankind. Is this a relativist form of going nuclear? What are the (absurd) implications of this claim?Bogdanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15449119709471870254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25568980502367820672010-09-23T19:00:57.500+00:002010-09-23T19:00:57.500+00:00(1) Here is a cartoon by Zach Weiner that, I think...(1) <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2009" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is a cartoon by Zach Weiner that, I think, illustrates what you are talking about (originally found at <a href="http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/09/23/facts-are-too-scrutable/" rel="nofollow">Evolving Thoughts</a>).<br /><br />(2) Your choice of term seems to me slightly off the mark. To "go nuclear" means to acquire nuclear weapon capacity. The vogue phrase for the <i>use</i> of nuclear weapons is "nuclear option." It seems to me that the latter, not the former, corresponds to the phenomenon that you analyze.Miles Rindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733605717776262840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57006392252040534692010-09-23T04:06:08.204+00:002010-09-23T04:06:08.204+00:00As an addendum, I have just found my original note...As an addendum, I have just found my original notes from the Kingston Uni debate on Evil. Would you like to see them?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14200071204109075522010-09-22T15:20:49.576+00:002010-09-22T15:20:49.576+00:00How can they know their senses are a reliable guid...How can they know their senses are a reliable guide to the truth? <br /><br />They could join the Boy Scouts, or whatever counts as fun for girls these days.<br /><br />Lees Wood: 7pm anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62798686758744892862010-09-22T09:08:59.427+00:002010-09-22T09:08:59.427+00:00Re: "Beyond Going Nuclear"
Isn't t...Re: "Beyond Going Nuclear" <br /><br />Isn't this just a variant of the relativist meltdown since it seems to say that the tools of argumentation depend on the beliefs of the persons engaged in the debate?wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53460141516800517212010-09-22T07:37:25.728+00:002010-09-22T07:37:25.728+00:00I like this version much better now. I'm sali...I like this version much better now. I'm salivating!jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353716090668341520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78964300615249460812010-09-22T07:00:47.134+00:002010-09-22T07:00:47.134+00:00The Chapter looks great to me Stephen. There's...The Chapter looks great to me Stephen. There's always a bit of final buffing to be done, but I am sure you will know Exactly when it's Done.<br /><br />I have a copy of <b>The Philosophy Gym</b>. Would you be kind enough to sign it for me? <br /><br />And finally, in closing I'm going to mention how proud I am that my wife has recently been awarded a MSc. M (Merit) in Neurological rehab. We all need a good bang in the head, from time to time!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14302671422036093392010-09-21T08:14:59.328+00:002010-09-21T08:14:59.328+00:00Bit too long for me, can it be hacked down a bit? ...Bit too long for me, can it be hacked down a bit? Slash and burn is always healthy for the environment.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66340785905163027152010-09-20T22:02:42.684+00:002010-09-20T22:02:42.684+00:00Please use the word Aboriginal with a capital A in...Please use the word Aboriginal with a capital A instead of the lower case. Better yet try Indigeous Australians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77794943052767794482010-09-20T21:00:10.247+00:002010-09-20T21:00:10.247+00:00"What is truth?" might not be full "..."What is truth?" might not be full "going nuclear", but it's surely leaving a finger hovering over the button.<br /><br />I don't think you need to retreat so much in the last paragraphTony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36955602179418302512010-09-20T16:51:58.292+00:002010-09-20T16:51:58.292+00:00Do you need to, obliquely, refer to Sye? You coul...Do you need to, obliquely, refer to Sye? You could introduce it as the foundation for the entire school of presuppositional apologetics. The move has spread everywhere, way beyond one internet crank (although tht quote is great!). Hugh Ross (of the Discovery Institute) has used the strategy in one book of his that I wasted my money on. You'll find it used by Ken Ham, Eric Hovind has picked it up off Sye and you continually read Fundies playing the "you have no basis for saying lying is bad" card when caught lying.<br /><br />(There's even a flavour of it in Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism).Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85973292832175509952010-09-20T16:12:36.812+00:002010-09-20T16:12:36.812+00:00Perhaps a paragraph under "Beyond Going Nucle...Perhaps a paragraph under "Beyond Going Nuclear" on the actual dispute about who can (or needs to) "justify" logic? That's a question that seems implicitly raised by that section. I recognize that you were addressing the more limited point of whether the argument that atheism can't account for reason is a defense against an atheist's reasonable arguments, and I think you did address that adequately, but here's what I think is really going on when people use that argument.<br /><br />1. You have made atheistic arguments based on logic.<br />2. But you can't account for logic, because you're an atheist.<br />3. I can account for logic, because I am a theist.<br />4. Logic is real.<br />5. Therefore theism is true.<br />6. Therefore your arguments, which conclude that theism is not true, must be flawed in some way, even if I cannot find the flaw myself.<br /><br />Or if you're Matt Slick,<br /><br />1. Atheists can't account for logic.<br />2. Theists can.<br />3. In fact, atheists don't even understand what I'm talking about when I demand that they account for logic, and when I insist that I can do it and they can't.<br />4. This argument is such a mind screw that they look foolish while I doggedly repeat the same talking points.<br />5. Therefore I win.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52565914014789494082010-09-20T12:22:52.307+00:002010-09-20T12:22:52.307+00:00I've come across the Nuclear Happy Theist for ...I've come across the Nuclear Happy Theist for sure. In the last case the bomb was that sensory justification for empirical based knowledge equally allowed sensory justification for God - the sensory justification in that case was 'I "sense" God internally'. Oy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com