From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:05 AM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: evidence of god? for Latta(!), Holtz [G Riggs] From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: evidence of god? for Latta(!), Holtz [G Riggs] References: <001501c1b01b$4159e320$0200a8c0@smateo1.sfba.home.com> <017f01c1b0ed$e857f220$199154a2@d6q8k7> <000c01c1b3f8$cb4bfa60$0200a8c0@smateo1.sfba.home.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.204.165 Message-ID: <29c16047.0203061005.3bd251f7@posting.google.com> "G Riggs" wrote > > 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). > > By merely making a choice to harm themselves, they are > certainly endangering their progeny. Shouldn't we indeed > second-guess that? Yes if it causes actual injury to said progeny, but not if it merely diminishes the progeny's opportunities. People diminish their descendents' opportunities all the time, and doing so is not a crime. > > Ignorance and fear of change can never be entirely eliminated. > > Their existence does not make unfounded my confidence in > > true political and economic freedom. > > No, but their frustration may imperil social stability. Frustration due to material want is diminishing as rapidly as material want itself is diminishing. Fear of change (such as yours) doesn't imperil social stability, it merely impedes improvements to our material well-being. > > Such perceptions are in fact nonsense, and need only be pointed > > out to be such. > > What is the most persuasive way, then, of bringing enough > people round, who feel left out and ignored, to stem critical social > upheaval in time? Pointing out to them which of their perceptions are inaccurate or nonsensical. > > > Bringing more elements of global society into the > > > globalization process will [help social stability]. > > > > This is incredibly vague, > > It may be vague, but it involves an essential concern intrinsic > to whatever social bonds will hold global society together. If you can't be more specific, then there's nothing to say here. > my unease at the absence of any agreed-upon standard on the > horizon round which all humanity can gather in this new century. > (Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus) [..] were able > to provide a compelling context for their urgings that the > human family change and act more reciprocally. [..] > I don't see that [..] anyone in the public marketplace > of ideas today) [is] substituting a new context that is > equally compelling for the populace at large Then I humbly submit that you are blind. Never before in recorded history has humanity been as close as it is now to a common understanding of the rights of all humans and the workings of the universe. > > Few modern thinkers take seriously the > > notion that one can objectively reason from "is" to "ought". > > [..] > > LOL. I take it you have no defense for the notion that one can objectively reason from "is" to "ought". (It's quite bizarre that at times you claim ethics can be objectively rational, while at other times you claim that there are better sources of ethical principles than mere scare-quoted "rationality".) > the extent of deity's reality (a matter of possibly little moment, > in any case, if persuasively decoupled from ethics by scientific > research), but because it would move us forward on the path > to understanding the workings of evolutionary ethics themselves. "Scientific research" cannot tell us what ethics we should choose, and this fact cannot be changed by using the term "evolutionary ethics" to name some ethics that you've already chosen on necessarily non-scientific grounds. > > 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? > > Not likely, IMO. Then we have such radically differing intuitions about historical possibility that there is little point in continuing this discussion. > I believe all cultural phenomena to be > manifestations of nature itself, pure and simple. How is this not a meaningless truism? > there is no dichotomy whatsoever between culture and > nature. Clearly false. The dichotomy lies in whether intelligence is involved. The fact that intelligence is natural does not make this distinction disappear. > > How did such ancient atheists explain all the apparent > > cosmological and biological design? Was not such design > > a primary argument against them? > > Evidently Leucippos did not find it so. He was the pioneer > of the earliest known atheist school in the Western > tradition, atomism. [..] Diogenes Laertius > gives a description of Leucippos's ideas concerning the > generating of all the planets: > > "Leucippos holds that the whole is infinite . . . part of it is > full and part void . . . Hence arise innumerable worlds, and > are resolved again into these elements. The worlds come > into being as follows: many bodies of all sorts of shapes > move 'by abscission from the infinite' into a great void; [..] Leucippos' drivel is pretty much the opposite of what I mean by "robust atheism". This could not have been taken for very long as a useful explanation of anything, and of course was not. How can you be surprised at the popularity of theism when this was the alternative? > it's hard to say how much of our own thinking today, however > perceived by us as rational, may not, to a degree, be formed > through our conditioning instead. The truth of a proposition is ultimately independent of the process that formulated it. To believe otherwise is called the Genetic Fallacy. > it seems worthwhile, IMO, to pursue *both* lines > of inquiry: the groundbreaking "reciprocalism" coined by > pathbreakers of the past and the "rational" extrapolation of > optimal ethics for today. Putting the word 'rational' in quotes does not make alternative approaches any less irrational. > > 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. > > I already stated that the Big Bang theory defeated the > Steady State theory. Are you inferring that I didn't? You had said: > [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 "Continually recharged existence" sounds like continuous creation to me. > > > This suggests that the increased survivability of a > > > species reflects a principle of thriving, a positive > > > principle, that suffuses the entire cosmos. > > > > 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. > > It is neither. It is a guess. No, calling it a conjecture doesn't make it objective or even possibly objective. It's in the category of value judgements, which can never be ultimately objective. > > 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? > > I claim that as a distinct probability. If we cannot agree on rationality as the ultimate arbiter of the ethical conclusions that we derive from our fundamental ethical value judgements, then we have no basis for discussion. > I have no objection to a culture that is founded on an > assumption that ethics is not metaphysically grounded, just > so long as the "framework" can be tested and proved > persuasive enough in the public square to bring a critical > enough mass of humanity together in peace and ecological > responsibility without counterproductive coercion. Here again is your a priori, scientifically ungrounded assumption that "peace and ecological responsibility" are to be valued. As I said: 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. (BTW, "critical enough mass" is redundant.) > Science may well have the rhetorical and conceptual seeds for > tremendous inspiration for a global populace as a whole. Here again you mistakenly assume that science can grow ethics. It cannot. > I've yet to see the formulation that can grow such seeds and > inspire an entire globe peacefully and freely around them. > This is not to say the potential may not be there. > It's just that there's too much conceptual and rhetorical > laziness around, IMO, for anyone to bother--apparently. The emerging global consensus for peace through freedom is so pervasive that you are as blind to it as a fish is to water. The emerging consensus is totally unprecedented in human history, and yet you complain that everyone is too lazy to bother creating such a consensus. Astounding. > One of us may be right, but neither of us is inspirational enough. Again, I'm scared by your need to follow thinkers instead of thoughts. Hasn't there been enough harm caused in human history by putting charismatic leadership ahead of principle? In this century, the right thoughts are finally winning, in a historically unprecedented way, and yet you still are searching for a person or "essence" to do your thinking for you. > respectfully ask that Mr. Holtz > hold off on this enclosure for Mr. Latta Too late; I already pointed out in an earlier post all your enclosed mistakes concerning Gingrich, Republicans, and the alleged absence of global vision in American political leadership. > > 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. > > [Extended description of how being a duck-and-cover kid led to > his original-but-not-novel principle of cooperation.] > I arrived at the conclusion that nothing supercedes it pretty > much on my own. You did not answer my question: is it possible for someone to invent an ethical principle better than altruism/reciprocity/cooperation? > > You're not answering the question; you're just restating > > your position that originality is important to validity. > > Why should I agree? > > Feel free to disagree. If you have no reason why I should agree, then we're done here. > we are the ones least capable of detecting our own > conditioning. That wasn't the question. > Consequently, the studies of others and others' concepts > outside us may be more fruitful, in the short term, anyway, than the > generation of "rational" ethics on our own recognizance, because of our > perhaps being ultimately incapable of accurately assessing our own > conditioning and its true extent. You seem to be quite a relativist. Putting the word 'rational' inside quotation marks does nothing to suspend the power and relevance of rationality, or to excuse your position from its lack thereof. > > The urge to follow > > particular leaders instead of universal principles > > is in my judgement indicative of primitive ethical > > development. > > it arises more out of an awareness of the phenomenological > importance of what has made groundbreaking formulations tick > in the past. No "phenomenology" can make the thinker more important than the thought. > If I'm going to follow anything, it might be a syncretic path > of some kind incorporating those aspects on which all four > most clearly agree. Feel free to form fan clubs and join cults, but don't be surprised if others prefer instead to follow the principles they find most rationally defensible, regardless of their source. > I might, instead, detect certain mechanisms common > to all four in the way that they reached their conclusions > in the first place, and then ascertain what the application > of such mechanisms might yield in my own case. To the extent these "mechanisms" are something other than rationality applied to one's core value judgements, this would be folly. But I don't think you're serious, since (as I've said) I doubt you would follow your own "sociological" methodology if it led you anywhere but straight toward your a priori judgement that altruism/reciprocity/cooperation is the highest ethical principle. > > why not do ALL your own thinking? > > [..] some of it may be governed by conditioning that has become > too ingrained for me to detect. Just because a thought is "conditioned" does not make it wrong -- unless you have a relativist's irrational fetish for originality. > > 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. > > Clearly, one's own judgement of which ethical outlook is > best inevitably leads one in the direction of figure A > rather than figure B If you truly relied on your own "judgement of which ethical outlook is best", then you wouldn't be so concerned over the ideological geneology of various alternative "outlooks". > I'm not abdicating my sense of right and wrong to only one > individual to be idolized. No, you're abdicating your sense of right and wrong to four individuals. :-) > > 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. > > Fine. Fine. > > > [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. > > I'm familiar with this argument. I've seen it before. Yes, it's so classic that the opposing view has been enshrined in the hall of bad ideas as "the genetic fallacy". > my atheism very definitely entailed a clearly definable > cosmological theory Your "atheism" was therefore misconceived. > I have conceived of the universe as very much a random > phenomenon [in which the Big Bang led to life and > self-consciousness] If by "random phenomenon" you just mean one with no apparent intelligent designer or cause, then that is indeed entailed by atheism. None of the rest is. > > 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. > > Good. Another pitfall I can get certification for. When your position leads to an indefensible consequence, you have a curious habit of neither defending nor abandoning that position. If this is another way of distancing yourself from "rationality", it's working. > > > 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. > > Maybe, instead of my saying "being kept to a minimum", I should > have said "being settled peeacefully". So anyone who threatens the peace automatically gets his way? > your references to agression being deterred and injustice > being ended, while laudable, are vague enough, IMO, to > encompass any possible methods of achieving that No, they explicitly rule out the pacifist appeasement that it sounds like you would support. > > If you call Reagan's policy "cooperation", then I'm not sure > > what you're contrasting it with. > > I'm contrasting it with the stick (as opposed to any carrot) that > you yourself implied, in a previous posting, was the *only* > thing that helped end the Cold War. I implied no such thing; I simply said that "humanity's present and future would have been worse" if the West had adopted pacifist appeasement. > I claim that the pragmatism of Gorbachev in favor of > cooperation had at least as much to do with the "War"'s end > as "limited nuclear war" Strawman. Nobody seriously says that talk of "limited nuclear war" helped end the Cold War as much as Gorbachev's realization that Reagan was right about communism's destiny in "the dustbin of history". > and the other (reckless?) concepts coming out of Washington > at the time. On the contrary, the economic triumphalism and moral superiority trumpeted by people like Reagan and Thatcher was by many accounts the *cause* of Gorbachev's pragmatism. > > 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. > > That bespeaks a lack of understanding of the degree to > which this globe is now a village. Your comments bespeak a lack of understanding of the degree to which six billion people constitute a global economy and not simply a group of huts. > we protect ourselves and everyone else in > the globe when no one in the village is left wanting. The existence of a single indigent person somewhere on the planet does not constitute a moral claim on my resources. It constitutes a moral claim on the resources of the most-local level of community that is capable of dealing with such indigence. If you believe otherwise, it is immoral of you to enjoy a single luxury as long as anyone anywhere is indigent. > Feeding everyone is now tied > to basic pragmatic survival for *everyone* without exception Countries don't starve; people starve. I already said we have a moral duty to stop nation-scale starvation. But we have no moral duty to send money to a nation just because it's poor, or has some poor people in it. Your comments bespeak a lack of understanding of how best to ensure the material prosperity of the world's poor. If you think it's through charity, you are quite demonstrably mistaken. > [..] The chief groundbreaking leaps of understanding from these > lonely individuals have also *seemed* tied to leaps of ever > more refined conceptualizations surrounding deity. Any such seeming "tie" is a historical contingency, and a quite unsurprising one at that. > > Perhaps you should stress "short-sightedness" versus > > "enlightenment", and say what you mean by them. > > "Short-sightedness" is what can impel someone without much > foresight to grab one's neighbour's produce without > permission and make a single meal out of > it for oneself. That's not short-sightedness, that's aggression. > "Enlightenment" is to take the trouble to learn the > techniques of making produce from one's neighbour, > and of learning to share with one's neighbour to the > extent where cooperation can generate not just enough > produce for the two of them but for > an entire community. Change "share" to "freely trade", and you've described free-market capitalism. It -- and not naively altruistic charity -- is indeed the single greatest force in human history for minimizing material want. > > If your critique of free markets is that some people > > "feel left out", then [..] > > Social upheaval of every sort has > attended overzealous imposition of Western-style markets in > Third World countries that lack the social cohesion > industrialized nations take for granted. Any Third-World failures of Western-style markets are not due to a "lack of social cohesion", but rather to governments being too corrupt to prevent fraud and protect property rights. > > 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. > > Sorry.....er......"neophobes"? Those who fear the future and especially their naive extrapolations into it. > > Public funding should be for basic > > research, and not for second-guessing the market's > > judgement of which technology should be commercialized. > > IMO, it should still be for both. Wrong. Markets are smarter than you. And me. > The (implied) notion that energy technologies which promise > a cleaner planet should be put on the back burner > because the market is already glutted The implied notion is that when externalities like pollution are properly internalized, the market will tell us whether it is more efficient to, say, burn some more fossil fuels vs. build expensive solar cells. For example, if fossil fuels are still cheaper than solar cells even after pollution externalities are internalized (e.g. through a tax whose proceeds are applied to abating pollution), then it's simply a waste of resources to insist on more-expensive solar cells instead. Isn't wasting resources the opposite of what you want? -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net