From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:09 AM
To: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: evidence of god? replies to the redoubtable Holtz -- long

> > the result you seek can be effected by taking living people
> > as proxies for the rights of all their offspring. That is,
> > any "rights" of my unconceived descendents can be protected
> > simply by protecting *my* rights.
> 
> Not necessarily.  It's occasionally (I won't say always) 
> possible that a power plant using a non-renewable and 
> "dirty" energy source can benefit a small group of living 
> people in the short term [while] sew[ing] havoc for the 
> next generation through contaminated water,
> cancers, deformed infants, etc.

Contaminated water, cancer, and deformation are all
violations of the rights of existing, living people.

> the offspring that may reap more of the negative than the
> positive consequences, while the currently living people 
> may reap more positive than negative consequences.

That can only be the case if 1) current people are ignorant
of the current damage or endangerment to them or 
their property or their resource rights; or 2) current people
don't care about current damage or endangerment to them 
or their property or their resource rights (since such current
damage or endangerment is the only possible way for future 
negative consequences to happen).

If (2), then people are making a choice to harm themselves
(and impoverish their progeny) that we should not second-guess
(unless it constitutes actual abuse of said progeny, a la
crack babies).

If (1), then either (1a) nobody else knows of this current
damage, or (1b) somebody else knows.  If (1a), then there
is (by hypothesis!) no grounds for us to even claim the
damage is happening.  If (1b), then either
(1b1) the damage-causers (should) know it and are thus 
committing a crime or tort, or (1b2) there will be a
market incentive for journalistic dissemination 
of the relevant knowledge.

So again: free markets and proper protection of existing
people's rights can do the job you want done.

> > I have confidence that social systems founded on
> > political and economic freedom will continue to provide for
> > and improve humanity's material well-being. Calling this
> > confidence "complacency" may simply reflect your possible
> > lack of understanding of the relevant system dynamics.
> 
> With due respect, it was complacency with respect to the 
> thriving, but seriously corrupt, market systems of many a 
> South American ally

You seem to be confusing free-market systems with any system in 
which capital has not been socialized.  Past complacency with
injustice in some non-socialist country somewhere does not 
make unfounded my confidence in true political and economic 
freedom.

> since the occasional demonstrations (even riots) that the
> world has now seen against "globalization" appear to be 
> based on certain perceptions (whether accurate
> or not) of a growing degree of powerlessness, that *perception* of
> powerlessness must be addressed in some practical way before it 
> festers and grows out of control.

Ignorance and fear of change can never be entirely eliminated.
Their existence does not make unfounded my confidence in
true political and economic freedom.

> it's time we visibly address the concerns of those 
> who sincerely feel that their lives may be manipulated 
> globally in as crushing a way as
> any citizen was ever manipulated in the old Soviet Union.  
> This is not to say that such perceptions are entirely accurate.

Such perceptions are in fact nonsense, and need only be pointed
out to be such.
 
> Bringing more elements of global society into the
> globalization process will [help social stability].

This is incredibly vague, and also quite far afield from
the topic of atheism.

> > SOCIOLOGY OF ETHICS
> >
> > the most valid ethical principles
> > can be reasoned out directly and theoretically, and cannot
> > be determined empirically.
> 
> If it is arguable that the very processes of evolution 
> itself can be determined empirically, then 
> the same can be true of ethical principles

Few modern thinkers take seriously the
notion that one can objectively reason from "is" to "ought".
The main exception I can think of are Objectivist Randroids,
which usually haunt every newsgroup but are seemingly rare
on a.a.m.

> > Your four antecdotes are too
> > hopelessly confounded by uncontrolled variables to
> > motivate the conclusion that you draw (viz., that deity
> > probably exists).
> 
> ....which makes it all the more imperative that others 
> here come up with further instances

By "hoplelessly", I mean that all the instances in the world
could not properly motivate your conclusion.  Such instances
are simply not the right kind of evidence.

> Whether that newly discovered accelerated expansion can 
> be regarded as a reactive process in tandem with an 
> entirely materialistic cosmos or as a manifestation of 
> an actively and consciously Creative process 
> that spurred all things in the pro-matter cosmos 
> into existence--who knows?

I do. Answer: it's not a manifestation of a consciousness.

> an "influential
> powerful consciousness", call it God, call it the Creative 
> principle throughout the cosmos, whatever, could eventually 
> be intuited by a social species

You still haven't explained how you think this "consciousness"
is different from the mere idea of reciprocity.  At any rate,
there is no credible evidence for the existence of any
such consciousness.

> Subject to devastating refutation?  Sure.

I take it you mean by discovering of some independently altruistic
atheist.  But do you not see the flaw in how you are reasoning
from mere historical contingency?  Is there no possible world
in which there are no gods and yet all the groundbreaking
altruists are theists?  To me it just seems obvious how it
could happen -- and that it in fact *did* happen.

> > Values cannot be fundamentally objective. To say they can 
> > be is called the Naturalistic Fallacy.
> 
> Fine. Where do I apply for my card certifying my 
> qualifications as its victim?

Try your local Objectivist club, or perhaps some kind of
Marxist society. :-)

> > There is absolutely nothing in science that
> > can tell you that your choice is right or wrong, good or evil.
> 
> Considering that modern science has posited an anti-matter and a 
> pro-matter universe, it may not be that fanciful after all 
> to imagine that polarites exist in the cosmos which may 
> parallel the polarities of right and wrong,

You might as well say that because there exists in nature an
objective way to distinguish between the opposites of "up" 
and "down", there might exist an objective way to distinguish 
right and wrong.  This isn't fanciful, it's simply mistaken.

> > Yes, and the men living the life of the mind did not have access
> > to the Darwinian theory necessary to realize deities don't exist.
> 
> [..] may have been ignorant of evolution, but they were not 
> ignorant of highly robust, and sometimes closely and 
> extensively argued, atheism.

How did such ancient atheists explain all the apparent
cosmological and biological design?  Was not such design
a primary argument against them?

> > It seems odd to promote "admirable" ethics by trying
> > to reproduce the allegedly theistic "viscera" that created them,
> > instead of just rationally defending those ethics as optimal.
> 
> The rational defense of specific ethics is not disqualified in my
> methodology.  It's just that my main focus is on the degree to 
> which behavioral, historical, anthropological (etc.) research 
> can detect common patterns among those whose espousal of new 
> ethics [..]

I find that a very odd "main focus", and don't see how it can
possibly improve on the ethics derived from rational thinking
about the human condition.

> [the universe's] continual expansion in and of itself *may* 
> indicate a universe where a process of continually recharged 
> existence (or Creation, if one is
> theistically inclined) invariably shapes every nanosecond ad 
> infinitum, then an innate principle of thriving may be 
> an inherent principle

Sorry: the Big Bang -- even with its recently-discovered
acceleration -- is an all-at-once creation theory, which
*defeated* the continuous-creation Steady State theory.

> Evolution is a positive process by which
> thriving is built in to the history of any species.

Calling evolution "positive" is not a scientific judgement,
but an axiological (philosophical) one. Note that if the
universe were no so tight-fisted in its thermodynamics (through
conservation of energy and the law of entropy), it could
support arbitrarily more "thriving" than it does now. 

> evolution itself is a positive process that, regardless 
> of individual instances, operates toward a general 
> improvement and greater survivability of a species.  

This sounds like a common misconception that biologists are
always trying (perhaps too hard) to correct. As I say in 
section 3.5.5. (Natural Science / Biology / Evolutionary Biology)

  Evolution does not inevitably cause "progress" toward 
  "higher" forms.  Evolution can remove features (such as 
  eyes and limbs) as well as add them.  Evolution is not 
  constrained to creating increasing complexity.  However, 
  as an ecosystem develops, extremes of complexity can become
  more likely due to accumulation of complicating changes 
  in some lineages.

> This suggests that the increased survivability of a 
> species reflects a principle of thriving, a positive 
> principle, that suffuses the entire cosmos.

Evolution is simply unavoidable in circumstances like those
that obtain in the universe. If the universe were really
pro-thriving, it would repeal thermodynamics.

I too am a fan of evolution. However, this is a non-objective
value judgement, and not a recognition of an objective state 
of affairs.

> > there must be an "essence" of valid ethical
> > thinking, an "essence" that leads to more-valid ethical
> > conclusions than the alternative of rational discourse?
> 
> There may or may not be such an "essence", but I do believe 
> that tremendous social courage on the part of some would-be 
> pioneer remains a useful "tip-off" in gauging the presence 
> or absence of some useful "essence",
> especially when new ideas seem to be developed in tandem 
> with an apparent inability to bear the very thought of 
> others' suffering.

You're not engaging the question.  Do you or do you not
claim that there is or might be an "essence" that leads 
to ethical conclusions that are better in any way than the 
alternative technique of rational discourse?

You seem to think the most important sociology-of-ethics issue
is to figure out how people invent novel yet first-rate 
ethical principles. I would say that the most important
sociology-of-ethics issue is to figure out how to get
people to follow the ethical principles that already
have been invented.

Note, however, that as a hardcore altruist you would probably
deny that it is even possible for someone to invent an
ethical principle better than altruism. This shows that you
don't even follow your own "sociological" methodology, but
instead are tacitly following my recommendation of a priori
non-empirical ethical philosophizing.

> > I just don't see this solemn obligation at all, and I've never
> > heard of a philosopher or social scientist who thought that
> > ethical validity was so tightly constrained by originality.
> 
> any valid pioneer should clearly be perceived as
> bucking his peers, marching to her/his own drummer,

You're not answering the question; you're just restating
your position that originality is important to validity.
Why should I agree?

> Scientifically speaking, such a "highlone" phenomenon can 
> be more easily viewed "neat", so to speak, than one whose
> (possibly impeccable) ethics are nevertheless the plain 
> result of well-known influences and precedents

This is only important if you're looking to follow
persons instead of principles. The urge to follow 
particular leaders instead of universal principles
is in my judgement indicative of primitive ethical
development.

> Perhaps my hangup stems from my conviction (however irrational)
> that the most durable and evolutionarily friendly ethical 
> principles must ultimately be tied to individual courage.

Is this conviction your own judgement, or did you pick it
up from somebody?  If the former, then why not do ALL your
own thinking?  If the latter, then what justifies this
somebody's conviction that ethics can only be justified by 
courage?  (Or alternatively, what attribute of this somebody
makes *his* conviction valid? To avoid circularity, it can't
be his courage, so is it -- his hair color? :-)

> I simply put more stock in those principles
> developed within the crucible of gutsy independence, 
> almost to the point of individual risk for the proposer, 
> than in those principles arrived at, however logically, 
> "by committee".

So it's better to follow a "gutsy" ethical leader than
to follow the ethical principles that one judges to
be most valid?  I couldn't disagree more.

> > whether the object of the inspiration [deity] exists.
> 
> It's odd, though, when a group of people from radically 
> different cultural backgrounds all seem to converge on a 
> small subset of similar points.

It's no more odd than that most ancients believed the earth
is flat. If you think it's metaphysically interesting that 
some otherwise admirable ancient thinkers believed in deity, 
then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

> > [..] no support [for] the primitive and untutored theistic
> > suppositions of your four ancients.
> 
> [nor is there] support [for] one
> significant atheist construct throughout time:
> The Steady-State concept of the universe

The truth of atheism is independent of any such cosmological
theory that some atheist may have held, just as
the truth of theism is independent of whether any theists
have had altruistic ethics.  The contrary idea -- that the
truth of (a)theism is dependent on the other things that
(a)theists believe -- is an example of the genetic fallacy.

> > I know we have no "unsympathetic accounts" of Jesus' behavior
> > by anyone with independent knowledge of it.
> 
> Actually, we do.  The Mishnah account is quite unsympathetic.

"The Mishnah account" seems to be only a single sentence
that may not necessarily even be about Jesus.  See
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/yebamoth49a.html.
I don't see any evidence here that the Mishnah account was
independent of the gospel tradition (vs. in disagreement with
it).

> > EXTINCTION AND PACIFISM
> 
> what about fears stemming from the peril posed by increasingly
> sophisticated weapons technology being used by more and more
> localized and petty combatants (Bin Laden's minions etc.)?
> Doesn't that argue a necessarily global concern for all 
> feuds being kept to a minimum?

No, it argues for irrationality (like theism) to be answered
with reason, for aggression to be deterred, and for injustice
to be ended.  For more details on such perils, see the
subsection "Man-made Catastrophes" in section 
5.7.8. (Social Science / Futurology / Possible Catastrophes)
of my book.

> > opposition to tyranny --
> > as compared to pacifistic acceptance of it -- helped end it
> > while also avoiding nuclear catastrophe.
> 
> Reykjavik showed that cooperation was ultimately the only
> way out of the impasse.

If you call Reagan's policy "cooperation", then I'm not sure
what you're contrasting it with.

> I sense too much arrogance among those of us who readily 
> avail ourselves of technology's wonders --almost as if 
> those who feel left out of this new age don't really count.

I sense a strawman here. Please name at least one of these
"arrogant" people and quote what you disagree with.

> HUMAN NATURE
> 
> > > > > Our species (and perhaps not just our species alone) may
> > > > > have a collective sense of survival after all
> 
> > but it should not be confused
> > with the general evolutionary selection for survival of the
> > individual's alleles (as opposed to the species' genotype).
> 
> that still does not demonstrate any inherent lack 
> of parallel development among different individuals.

I never said it did. "Collective sense of survival" was
misleadingly vague, whereas "parallel development" is
just vague.  What precisely is your point here, and how
could it possibly constitute evidence for theism?

> Perhaps I should stress "short-sighted presumption of
> self-interest" versus genuinely enlightened self-interest, 
> which is ultimately the same as mutual interest.

Perhaps you should stress "short-sightedness" versus
"enlightenment", and say what you mean by them.

> I have still seen no truly comprehensive scientific parsing 
> out of the biological, genetic (etc.) dynamics by which 
> civilization's codes are developed.

I suspect that the kind of explanation you seek is simply
not possible. History is too contingent, and ethics is
too many levels above biology as a phenomenon.

> > It's quite natural, but it's not nearly as powerful or direct.
> 
> The urge [for cooperation] strikes me as
> being fully as powerful and direct as the drive for food and sex.
> Only an egotistic distortion of a drive for power at all costs
> stands in its way, and I believe such egotism to be 
> pathological and temporary, not general

If people have to choose between food+sex versus cooperation,
they'll tend to choose food+sex.  That's natural, and thinking
of it as pathological will only mess up your understanding of how
people do and should behave. You should instead try to understand
how cooperation is usually not an alternative to food+sex,
and how ethics can be used to promote such harmonies.

> > MARKET FAILURES
> >
> > Free markets (and the technologies they harness) have been the
> > greatest force for material prosperity in human history.
> > As measured in the centuries by which humanity's progress
> > has been retarded, theistic fundamentalism has been history's most
> > pernicious socioeconomic force by about an order of magnitude.
> 
> the notion that the left out and the helpless ought to be
> cared for came about through an (imperfectly applied, yes)
> introduction of Christian values

Tell that to serfs who were distracted from centuries of oppression
by the fairy tale of heaven and hell.

> > > are imperiled through any absence of laws that [..]
> > > protect the weak against the strong.
> >
> > Look again; the laws are there, enforcing the restraints I listed
> > above.
> 
> [..] theory--heck, even practice--doesn't cut too much ice
> for those who (rightly or wrongly) feel left out

If your critique of free markets is that some people
"feel left out", then that's simply not an impressive
criticism.  If you can't be any more specific, I think we're
done here.

> critical for future generations.  I know you may look 
> askance at the human claims of future generations.  
> I simply don't, and I don't imagine I ever will.

Just because I claim that future generations' interests
can be equally (in fact better) protected by ethical principles
that recognize rights only in existent entities, don't pretend
for a second that you care more about future generations
than I. 

As I said, I seriously think that the greatest
brake on progress toward the well-being of future generations 
will be precisely people like you and their misunderstanding of 
what ethical principles best promote humanity's well-being. 
The racists, autocrats, and theists can't do much more damage,
because by now it's too easy to show that they're wrong. 
The danger now is from the socialists and, especially, the 
neophobes.

> > And for persons in mortal danger from starvation and
> > illness, many of us free-marketers also advocate a safety net
> > (though not necessarily one like America's federal welfare system).
> 
> Please, are you talking here of a safety net on a 
> nation-by-nation basis or on an international basis?

Entire nations simply don't encounter mortal danger from
starvation and illness (unless the danger is manmade). I think we
have a moral duty to stop any nation-scale manmade threats
to human life that we can, but we do not have a duty to send
money to a nation just because it's poor.

> > 1) internalizing things like pollution that currently
> > are negative externalities in free market transactions,
> 
> I'd like you, please, to define what you mean here in #1)

As I already told you:

  Externality is a cost imposed or benefit bestowed on a 
  person other than those who agreed to the transaction 
  that created the cost or benefit. Negative externalities 
  are costs such as pollution or overconsumption of natural 
  resources. Positive externalities are benefits such as 
  scientific discoveries and incremental technical advances. 

A typical way to internalize an externality like pollution
is by creating an emissions tax or a market in emissions
licenses.

> > 2) publicly funding the production of positive externalities
> > through scientific research.
> 
> and Gingrich's apparent reluctance 
> to place the development of alternate sources of
> energy on the fast track always troubled me.

It's the wrong idea.  Just internalize the negative 
externalities and let the market tell you which energy
source is best. Public funding should be for basic
research, and not for second-guessing the market's
judgement of which technology should be commercialized.

> The hunger in our country for a path of selfless achievement 
> has been highlighted definitively, IMO, in the heroism that 
> we have seen in the wake of the Towers massacre.

There was definite heroism on the morning of Sep 11, but the
nation's reaction since then bespeaks a lack of perspective.
As someone who displayed US flags before Sep 11, I find all
this foul-weather patriotism quite belated, and America's
post-911 self-paralysis quite embarrassing. As a father whose
infant son died in my arms on Sep 14, I find the victims' 
families' greed for tax-funded compensation quite revolting. 
As for heroes, people should not forget that this is the
same NYPD that covered up the sodomy torture of Haitian 
immigrant Abner Louima, and shot unarmed West African 
immigrant Amadou Diallo 19 times.

The big heroes of Sep 11 were Beamer and Burnett and the 
others on United Airlines flight 93 who brought their own 
plane down.  Are there any known cases of rescue personnel
entering the second tower after seeing the first tower
collapse?
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net