Paul says he's all about the Constitution. The Constitution does specifically provide for a Navy. It doesn't say what the Navy's mission has to be, but there does have to be one.
If we are standing in my front yard and you insist there is a dragon across the street that we can’t detect, you might well need to use linguistic gymnastics to define “reality,” declare how we know things to be True, and create an entire metaphysical system whereby your assertion that a dragon no one can detect is really there is “proven.” I reject that I have to do the same to reject your proposition. You might say you’re just being intellectually honest, and I might say that you’re using cleverness to be intellectually dishonest.
In Tim's discussion, I never got anything that seemed like a satisfactory response to my challenge to the first premise of the transcendental argument. In mentioning this exchange to a fellow non-believer, he indicated that he too had been challenged quite a lot over the past several months about "epistimology," on occasion by people who he doubted really understood what that word meant. He and I wondered if these kinds of apologetic gambits come in waves, as though radiating out from a common source; in six months, will we be arguing on some other, more fashionable turf?
After all, if your faith is strong you are not just arguing that God exists. You are invariably arguing that all who have come before you who had a faith slightly or greatly different from yours were wrong, and that the hundreds of millions of people today that believe, but believe differently than you, are wrong, and that you and a small number of your associates alone have cracked the Great Mystery and have an inside line into the Mind of the Creator.
I'm not sure this is accurate or fair. It is accurate for those who adhere to their particular flavor of orthodoxies, dogmas, rituals, and the other trappings of religion. These are the ones for whom the tribal instinct is strong. This is sometimes what you get in a street argument.
There are those who believe in the divine who do not insist that there is but a single path to whatever it is that they're looking for (salvation, communion, union, enlightenment, whatever it is they seek). Such people, lacking the tribal instinct, seem to not bother speaking up all that much when others announce themselves.
In cases where people who are thoughtful and intelligent wish to engage, there is still some tribalism going on (and it's damnably difficult to resist reacting to it in kind) but it manifests in ways that purport to be subject to some kind of verification or check. E.g., reliance upon philosophy or the marriage of philosophy and orthodoxy called "theology." There is tolerance and good faith and engagement, but ultimately there is a claim to superiority and an insistence that the non-faithful are in some sense erroneous.
...that all my education and work experience can be undone by a cover letter that doesn’t reveal enough information or reveals too much information or a resume that contains bullet points but no objective statement or an objective statement but no bullet points or that any other Procrustean litmus tests actually matter is just ridiculous.
One hopes that the awesomely-bespectacled Tom Van Dyke chimes in here. Seems to me that cover letters and resumes can do a lot more harm than good; you have to have something to get a door opened, but the resume is just the promise. You deliver the prestige in the interview.
The definitions of "wealth" and "poverty" will undoubtedly change as a result. We will have to create new things to deprive others from having so as to have economic strata. Entertainment, or information, or financial products.
The nails of a crucifixion were thought to have magical healing properties, and the wood used to make crucifixes and stakes for them were so valuable they had to be recycled. That's quite interesting.
My observations are not a matter of choice, any more than yours are. I'm done bashing my head against the wall repeating that.
You insist that you have superior knowledge to me, that you get to be certain where I am obliged to concede uncertainty. No. You have the same obligation to concede at least minimal uncertainty as do I. Maybe you hallucinated the voice; that is as likely as me hallucinating the silence. Maybe one of us was deceived by a third party. Maybe one or both of us suffers from selection bias -- hearing what we wanted to hear. Neither of us can ever be certain of these things.
What we can do is respond to the evidence we have available to us. You say you heard the voice, so you believe. That is not faith. It is a response to evidence. See John 20:24-29.
I, too, respond to evidence. The evidence I have gathered varies from yours. Where you heard a voice, I heard only silence. It is hardly surprising that my response to those observations should be different than yours.
Yet you think it incumbent upon me to continue to gather evidence until I find evidence of which you approve. And somehow I'm the unreasonable one here.
FWIW, the cross is not anathema to me. The cross doesn't belong in certain places, but clearly Christianity is a part of our culture. Boston's Old North Church played a prominent part in the Revolution; it is appropriate for the government to contribute to its preservation as a historical site, open to all regardless of their faith. (The congregation can pay for the church's ongoing religious activities.)
I'd never heard of this cross before it became controversial a few weeks ago, but if it is genuinely the case that this particular formation of rubble caused people to find hope and inspiration to respond to the 9/11 attack, then that particular formation of rubble has historical value and should be preserved as such.
Of course religion is simply culture. There is no god in the Egyptian pantheon that looks like a kangaroo, but you will find animals the Egyptians were culturally familiar with like crocodiles, cats, dogs, and ibises. In an African church, Jesus has black skin, tight curly hair, and high cheekbones, like most of the parishioners. Vishnu and Kali are Brahmins, like the elites of the society who worship them. Thor has blond hair and blue eyes and fights with a hammer, a lot like the Scandinavians who worshipped him. Apollo doesn't look a thing like a tiki god or an Aztec, but he does know how to play a Greek musical instrument.
By your definition, we are all agnostics, believers and non-believers alike. None of us ever be 100% certain that someone is on the other side, nor can anyone be 100% certain that no one is. By defining the term "agnostic" in such a way, IMO, the phrase is rendered meaningless. I prefer a definition that implies sincere and genuine uncertainty.
Either way, making a educated assesment on whether or not someone is in the house is a choice.
No, it's not. It's an observation.
By suggesting that I'm knocking on the wrong door, you're changing the analogy to the point it ceases to be useful. There's only one door here -- faith -- and repeated knocking on that door yields no response. That I concede that I cannot know for an absolute certainty that no one is home does not render continued knocking to be a reasonable option. This state of affairs is not my "choice" in any meaningful sense of that word.
Now you're making me tediously delve into definitions.
If by "atheist" you mean do I affirmatively believe, regardless of whatever evidence might exist, that there is no such things as the supernatural, then I would classify myself as an "agnostic." In theory, someone might offer proof or logic or something that would convince me that the existence of the supernatural is substantially likely. ("Substantially" falls short of "probably" in this calculus.) This has not yet happened despite an earnest search in my youth, sporadically resumed in adulthood, and most of the usual debates, dialogues, evangelism, etc. I am by now deeply skeptical that any such proof or evidence exists, but open-mindedness compels me to make at least cursory listens for new pitches. And sparring with intelligent people of differing points of view remains a sometimes enjoyable pastime. But I've heard all the standard arguments and evalauted all the typically-proffered "evidence." If you've got something genuinely new to bring to the table, I'll listen, but at this point finding something genuinely new is going to be a real challenge for you.
If by "agnostic" you mean I am genuinely uncertain about the supernatural, then you'd probably call me an "atheist." My level of certainty that the natural, observable world is all that has tangible existence, that there is no Prime Mover, no Uncaused Cause, no Intelligent Designer, no Personal Supernatural, exceeds that of Ivory Soap's purity. (That's not even getting into incarnate dieties, ressurections, singing angels, demons, ghosts, fairies, djinni, or any of the other decidedly silly cultural detritus of pre-rational folklore, none of which has been argued for here.) I feel no need to intellectually revisit the issue having done so thoroughly and earnestly in my past and found nothing, nothing, nothing. I am more likely to win the lotto than I am to adopt faith.
Either someone is inside or they're not. If someone is inside but doesn't answer, then I am being excluded. If no one is inside, I am wasting my time. Either way there is nothing for me at that house.
Really? I see Jason's personality-impersonality paradox and raise it with theodicy, and you think a dick joke calls the bet?
Thank you, however, for conceding that it there is no logical way out of these paradoxes. Nothing else on this thread has made me feel more comfortable in my skepticism than this.
The serious question is, why do we need to presuppose the existence of an entity outside of existence itself, in order to make sense of existence? If we're talking about Platonic Forms, I might not buy in to that concept, but it's an idea that makes sense to me as a means of finding a common vocabulary with which to discuss ineffable concepts like good and evil, why we should be good rather than evil, and what it even means to "be" good or evil.
Justice might be driven by utility than by deserts, or more likely by a blend of utility and desert, the exact recipe of which is still in dispute. (This is where I come down on that.)
Or it might only be possible for justice to be dispensed by an omnipotent supernatural entity for whom all things are morally permitted since to such an entity, there can be not even a theoretical contradiction between mercy and justice. Doesn't seem all that likely to me; YMMV.
Or it might be that there is no such thing as objective morality (which could be the case either with or without a supernatural Creator). In which case notions of fairness, utility, desert, and justice are phantoms, and all we can have is mercy or its absence. An unpleasant thought, to be sure, but the thought of wasps isn't very pleasant either and from time to time some of us have to confront wasps.
Presuming that God is morally perfect raises problems too. God, a morally perfect being, calls us to avoid temptation and sin. But being morally perfect, God cannot know what temptation is like; similarly, despite being omniscient, God cannot know what it is to commit a sin because God is incapable of sinning. Which also means God is not omniscient.
Which gets the theist -- now forced to become an armchair theologian -- into the rabbit holes of successive eras of Dispensation, virtuous pagans, etc.
Why does the proposition that supernatural entities do not exist necessarily fail for not addressing issues of morality?
The potential utility of God in addressing isues of morality and existential purpose is not an argument for God's existence. A perpetual motion machine would be an immensely useful thing too, but that doesn't mean it exists.
On “A Good Man is Hard to Find”
Paul says he's all about the Constitution. The Constitution does specifically provide for a Navy. It doesn't say what the Navy's mission has to be, but there does have to be one.
On “Confession”
In Tim's discussion, I never got anything that seemed like a satisfactory response to my challenge to the first premise of the transcendental argument. In mentioning this exchange to a fellow non-believer, he indicated that he too had been challenged quite a lot over the past several months about "epistimology," on occasion by people who he doubted really understood what that word meant. He and I wondered if these kinds of apologetic gambits come in waves, as though radiating out from a common source; in six months, will we be arguing on some other, more fashionable turf?
"
I'm not sure this is accurate or fair. It is accurate for those who adhere to their particular flavor of orthodoxies, dogmas, rituals, and the other trappings of religion. These are the ones for whom the tribal instinct is strong. This is sometimes what you get in a street argument.
There are those who believe in the divine who do not insist that there is but a single path to whatever it is that they're looking for (salvation, communion, union, enlightenment, whatever it is they seek). Such people, lacking the tribal instinct, seem to not bother speaking up all that much when others announce themselves.
In cases where people who are thoughtful and intelligent wish to engage, there is still some tribalism going on (and it's damnably difficult to resist reacting to it in kind) but it manifests in ways that purport to be subject to some kind of verification or check. E.g., reliance upon philosophy or the marriage of philosophy and orthodoxy called "theology." There is tolerance and good faith and engagement, but ultimately there is a claim to superiority and an insistence that the non-faithful are in some sense erroneous.
On “Thoughts on last night’s Republican debate”
Would you adjust for inflation?
"
Props on deploying "coup-fourré."
On “Jobs and Other Wastes of Worldly Effort”
One hopes that the awesomely-bespectacled Tom Van Dyke chimes in here. Seems to me that cover letters and resumes can do a lot more harm than good; you have to have something to get a door opened, but the resume is just the promise. You deliver the prestige in the interview.
"
The definitions of "wealth" and "poverty" will undoubtedly change as a result. We will have to create new things to deprive others from having so as to have economic strata. Entertainment, or information, or financial products.
On “Crucifixion and Archaeology”
The nails of a crucifixion were thought to have magical healing properties, and the wood used to make crucifixes and stakes for them were so valuable they had to be recycled. That's quite interesting.
On “A Little Atheism for Y’all”
My observations are not a matter of choice, any more than yours are. I'm done bashing my head against the wall repeating that.
You insist that you have superior knowledge to me, that you get to be certain where I am obliged to concede uncertainty. No. You have the same obligation to concede at least minimal uncertainty as do I. Maybe you hallucinated the voice; that is as likely as me hallucinating the silence. Maybe one of us was deceived by a third party. Maybe one or both of us suffers from selection bias -- hearing what we wanted to hear. Neither of us can ever be certain of these things.
What we can do is respond to the evidence we have available to us. You say you heard the voice, so you believe. That is not faith. It is a response to evidence. See John 20:24-29.
I, too, respond to evidence. The evidence I have gathered varies from yours. Where you heard a voice, I heard only silence. It is hardly surprising that my response to those observations should be different than yours.
Yet you think it incumbent upon me to continue to gather evidence until I find evidence of which you approve. And somehow I'm the unreasonable one here.
"
FWIW, the cross is not anathema to me. The cross doesn't belong in certain places, but clearly Christianity is a part of our culture. Boston's Old North Church played a prominent part in the Revolution; it is appropriate for the government to contribute to its preservation as a historical site, open to all regardless of their faith. (The congregation can pay for the church's ongoing religious activities.)
I'd never heard of this cross before it became controversial a few weeks ago, but if it is genuinely the case that this particular formation of rubble caused people to find hope and inspiration to respond to the 9/11 attack, then that particular formation of rubble has historical value and should be preserved as such.
"
Of course religion is simply culture. There is no god in the Egyptian pantheon that looks like a kangaroo, but you will find animals the Egyptians were culturally familiar with like crocodiles, cats, dogs, and ibises. In an African church, Jesus has black skin, tight curly hair, and high cheekbones, like most of the parishioners. Vishnu and Kali are Brahmins, like the elites of the society who worship them. Thor has blond hair and blue eyes and fights with a hammer, a lot like the Scandinavians who worshipped him. Apollo doesn't look a thing like a tiki god or an Aztec, but he does know how to play a Greek musical instrument.
Gods are created in man's image.
"
But they don't mean what you think they do.
"
By your definition, we are all agnostics, believers and non-believers alike. None of us ever be 100% certain that someone is on the other side, nor can anyone be 100% certain that no one is. By defining the term "agnostic" in such a way, IMO, the phrase is rendered meaningless. I prefer a definition that implies sincere and genuine uncertainty.
No, it's not. It's an observation.
By suggesting that I'm knocking on the wrong door, you're changing the analogy to the point it ceases to be useful. There's only one door here -- faith -- and repeated knocking on that door yields no response. That I concede that I cannot know for an absolute certainty that no one is home does not render continued knocking to be a reasonable option. This state of affairs is not my "choice" in any meaningful sense of that word.
"
Now you're making me tediously delve into definitions.
If by "atheist" you mean do I affirmatively believe, regardless of whatever evidence might exist, that there is no such things as the supernatural, then I would classify myself as an "agnostic." In theory, someone might offer proof or logic or something that would convince me that the existence of the supernatural is substantially likely. ("Substantially" falls short of "probably" in this calculus.) This has not yet happened despite an earnest search in my youth, sporadically resumed in adulthood, and most of the usual debates, dialogues, evangelism, etc. I am by now deeply skeptical that any such proof or evidence exists, but open-mindedness compels me to make at least cursory listens for new pitches. And sparring with intelligent people of differing points of view remains a sometimes enjoyable pastime. But I've heard all the standard arguments and evalauted all the typically-proffered "evidence." If you've got something genuinely new to bring to the table, I'll listen, but at this point finding something genuinely new is going to be a real challenge for you.
If by "agnostic" you mean I am genuinely uncertain about the supernatural, then you'd probably call me an "atheist." My level of certainty that the natural, observable world is all that has tangible existence, that there is no Prime Mover, no Uncaused Cause, no Intelligent Designer, no Personal Supernatural, exceeds that of Ivory Soap's purity. (That's not even getting into incarnate dieties, ressurections, singing angels, demons, ghosts, fairies, djinni, or any of the other decidedly silly cultural detritus of pre-rational folklore, none of which has been argued for here.) I feel no need to intellectually revisit the issue having done so thoroughly and earnestly in my past and found nothing, nothing, nothing. I am more likely to win the lotto than I am to adopt faith.
"
Either someone is inside or they're not. If someone is inside but doesn't answer, then I am being excluded. If no one is inside, I am wasting my time. Either way there is nothing for me at that house.
"
Really? I see Jason's personality-impersonality paradox and raise it with theodicy, and you think a dick joke calls the bet?
Thank you, however, for conceding that it there is no logical way out of these paradoxes. Nothing else on this thread has made me feel more comfortable in my skepticism than this.
"
And yet you keep on saying atheists and theists can't find a common vocabulary. Proved you wrong!
"
Yeah, the truth is my discovery plan isn't really getting all that completed today, thanks to Jason's lovely little hand grenade of a post.
"
Hmmm. I think I smell the cosmological argument coming down the pipe here.
"
Okay, ignore my joke. I thought it was funny.
The serious question is, why do we need to presuppose the existence of an entity outside of existence itself, in order to make sense of existence? If we're talking about Platonic Forms, I might not buy in to that concept, but it's an idea that makes sense to me as a means of finding a common vocabulary with which to discuss ineffable concepts like good and evil, why we should be good rather than evil, and what it even means to "be" good or evil.
"
If justice is fairness, mercy is unfair.
Justice might be driven by utility than by deserts, or more likely by a blend of utility and desert, the exact recipe of which is still in dispute. (This is where I come down on that.)
Or it might only be possible for justice to be dispensed by an omnipotent supernatural entity for whom all things are morally permitted since to such an entity, there can be not even a theoretical contradiction between mercy and justice. Doesn't seem all that likely to me; YMMV.
Or it might be that there is no such thing as objective morality (which could be the case either with or without a supernatural Creator). In which case notions of fairness, utility, desert, and justice are phantoms, and all we can have is mercy or its absence. An unpleasant thought, to be sure, but the thought of wasps isn't very pleasant either and from time to time some of us have to confront wasps.
"
Presuming that God is morally perfect raises problems too. God, a morally perfect being, calls us to avoid temptation and sin. But being morally perfect, God cannot know what temptation is like; similarly, despite being omniscient, God cannot know what it is to commit a sin because God is incapable of sinning. Which also means God is not omniscient.
This is the riddle of theodicy.
"
Which gets the theist -- now forced to become an armchair theologian -- into the rabbit holes of successive eras of Dispensation, virtuous pagans, etc.
I didn't say I bought the argument.
"
Why does the proposition that supernatural entities do not exist necessarily fail for not addressing issues of morality?
The potential utility of God in addressing isues of morality and existential purpose is not an argument for God's existence. A perpetual motion machine would be an immensely useful thing too, but that doesn't mean it exists.
"
We can discuss unicorns or Luke Skywalker or virgins in Newport Beach, but that doesn't mean that those things exist.
...Or are you talking about Platonic Forms?