This blog has, recently, been described as having an ”anti-religion bias”.
While I disagree that “bias” is the correct term, I feel I must address this.
The dictionary definition of “bias” is: “a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.”
Is that the case here? I think not.
Yes, I’m an atheist. And not just because I felt like it, or because I wanted to “rebel”, or anything like that. I’m an atheist because I thought about it. Both atheism and religion are subjects that interest me, so it’s natural that I write a lot about them. Some commenters have, indeed, complained that this site has turned into “all atheism, all the time”. I’ve tried to write some posts about other subjects, but I can’t be condemned for writing, most of the time, about what I currently want to write about.
About the “bias” thing, let’s consider a different situation. Instead of being a Portuguese blogger in 2006, imagine I was an American writer for a newspaper, in 1800. Slavery, then, was still considered accepted and “normal”. I, however, was repulsed by it, and while the newspaper I wrote for wasn’t about slavery, most of my articles were. It was a subject that concerned me, and I wrote about how wrong it was, often. I denounced several particular situations I observed, argued about why slavery was wrong, and refuted pro-slavery arguments.
It’s quite likely, in that situation, that I, as a writer, would be accused of an “anti-slavery bias“. But how is such a “bias” different from having an opinion, a strong, considered one, and sticking to it? Should I be writing some pro-slavery articles as well, to maintain the “balance”? I don’t think so. Slavery was wrong, even if society didn’t see it; slaves are as human as myself or anyone else, and have the same capacity for both suffering and joy. Treating them as cattle, as property, as pieces of equipment is wrong - and I’d say it, even if it annoyed people. After all, anyone who though slavery was a good thing could always just read another newspaper.
I think the situation here, concerning religion, is similar. And, yes, I hope that some day religion will go the way of slavery, though I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime.
Am I “biased”? No. I simply have a strong opinion about the matter, and my writing reflects it. I won’t do any kind of self-censorship. If my anti-religion posts annoy you, you can always stop reading and move on to the next post as soon as you see the “atheism“, “religion” or “christianity” categories.
Because I won’t stop speaking my mind. Sorry.
Related posts:
Pedro,
Great post. This is a point I often find myself trying to explain when attempting to discuss anything rational with those who make decisions emotionally. Because they make decisions emotionally, that is to say with their own biases, they cannot or will not understand that when one makes a decision rationally by considering all of the possibilities, necessities, and consequences, it is not bias but rather good judgement.
We often see the accusation that if given the same set of conditions, you always arrive at the same conclusion then you must be biased (this showed up here also) but this sort of argument cannot be applied consistently. If given 2 apples and you get two more, you will always end up with 4. that is to say that from the same set of conditions you always get the same result. There seems to be an expectation that one must give over to another view half (or all) of the time in order to not be labeled “biased.” Naturally this approach is detrimental to truth, civility, and reason.
The other very common source of the bias label is the result of a false dichotomy, that is of the person essentially saying that if you don’t agree with them, then you must be biased (as you have already addressed). Unfortunately since most often we are dealing with those of faith, or some other emotional rather than reasonable approach, pointing out that the approach itself is literally unreasonable, that is to say it is logically fallacious, has no effect on such individuals. They tend to then dig in deeper emotionally and launch into more personal attacks.
The solution? You got me. All I can see to do is to stay true to reason, stay true to the facts, and simply hope that either such individuals choose to allow reality and reason into their lives, else hope that someone else has a better approach for addressing such antagonism to reason. Not everything is subjective, but how do you prove this to the emotion based feeler (not thinker) who holds as an axiom that all is subjective (except maybe their own actually subjective feelings)?
Pedro,
I read your posts not only because of what you write about, but how you do so. I agree that when you write about atheism or religion it is always from a reasoned point of view. I agree with the definition of bias you gave, although I would probably add something about it having an emotional component in that it is a belief you are unwilling (or unable) to let go of.
Of course, as anyone who knows logic understands, a logical argument is often only as good as the initial assumptions one must make in order to create the argument. A well structured argument based on faulty assumptions is still a bad argument. Additionally even though a good argument may be both based on solid assumptions and be well structured, it can often happen that an equally solid set of different assumptions will lead to a new conclusion that holds true. Being a mathematician, I cite the development of non-Euclidean geometries such as spherical and hyperbolic as examples of this. These, along with typical Euclidean geometry, are fully developed systems with some wildly different results because an initial assumption was changed.
My point? The people who argue with you logically are, at best, working from a different set of assumptions that they do not want to challenge. I have never felt in your writing that you fall into this category… and for that I keep reading what you write. As for the emotional people, who in effect argue with the logical equivalent of “just because!”, I agree with TXStorm in that there is little you can do.
Keep on writing!
Since I was the one who made the original “Anti religion bias” statement, I think it’s only right for me to comment here.
No Pedro, nobody should be able to censor you.
There is also no reason for you to apologize, on your own sight, for writing about something you feel strongly.
I also must admit how wrong I was. At noticing the anti religious views that were obviouse in the clip I referred to, I wrongly associated those views with other anti religious movements such as Nazi’s and basically “freaked out”. My emotional views of hatred upon strangers were missplaced.
Kren: it’s OK, don’t worry. I hope you keep visiting and commenting.
Just remember: don’t take anything (either from me or from other people) as a personal offense. This applies to any other forums as well. People (including myself, sometimes) get a little too emotional when arguing, and that can be misinterpreted as a personal attack, even though it isn’t.
By the way, the Nazis weren’t really anti-religious, though many people make that mistake (same thing with Stalinism and its supposed “atheism”). They simply replaced one faith with another, one god with another, one religion with another. And their anti-semitism was based on Christianity. Harris’ The End of Faith has more details.
Jim,
You say: “The people who argue with you logically are, at best, working from a different set of assumptions that they do not want to challenge.”
I believe that this is a bit quick, to say the least. First it assumes a dual nature of reason which does not exist, and secondly it attributes a biased stance (that of not wanting their set of assumptions challenged) without any evidence of this.
If the person is in fact arguing logically, then as close as we can get to what you describe is differeing conditional statements/arguments, but then as these are conditional, there is certainly room for and reason for examining the antecedents to determine which if either of the conditionals hold. This is “challenging” the assumptions, and anyone who is arguing logically will have no problem with this at all, assuming of course that the challenges are also objective and reasonable.
As someone who has taught logic, as well as studied it for many years, I can offer myself as an example of someone who argues logically and has no problem with honest, reasonable, objective challenges to any conditional argument I offer (or to any argument at all, though in this context it is the conditional arguments which are the focus). In fact one of the great joys of life is when in having an assumption or premise challenged, one does in fact find an error or additional information such that your view changes as a result. This is the epitome of learning.
That said, we could have a condition where with all of the relevent objective facts available and accounted for in both conditional arguments, and with both employing valid argument forms, there are still opposing or conflicting conclusions, but these are extremely rare and I believe all pivot on the lack of available evidence.
My issue with the things I’ve read here is the same issue I have with every “in your face” atheist or theist writer (meaning those who make their personal theistic philosophy a major part of their writings). Both belief structures require some sort of leap of faith because there is no direct evidence one way or another as to the existence or non-existence of a God. I’ve read treatises on atheism (many writings of Richard Dawkins) and I’ve read treatises on theism (such as C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity”) and both, at some point, require a leap of faith, just in opposite directions. What bothers me is the arrogance on both sides of that divide, when both sides use their beliefs and treat them as facts, and I’ve seen some of that arrogance here, as well as some humility.
It’s an enjoyable blog to read, but it can really be frustrating at times.
TXStorm,
Thanks for the lesson… I will cherish it always.
Trent: to say that atheism requires “a leap of faith” is like saying disbelief in Santa Claus requires “a leap of faith”. It’s intellectually dishonest to treat both beliefs differently, when in reality you have exactly as much evidence for one as for the other.
You don’t have to prove that something doesn’t exist in order not to believe in it… because you can’t prove anything doesn’t exist. Can you prove werewolves don’t exist? I sure can’t. Yet I’m sure they don’t exist. The burden of proof is on the side that says something does exist.
I’m not arrogant when I say I’m convinced that there are no unicorns. I need no “leap of faith” to say so. Same thing about the Christian god. I have absolutely no reason to believe in either of them.
Pedro-
I do have a question that I haven’t actually haven’t gotten an answer from an athiest yet.
Where do you think life itself came from?
Kren: I’m not a biologist, so I don’t really know a lot about it. You can be an atheist without being a biologist.
I do have some books about that here in my “to-read” queue, so I hope to know more about it soon.
Meanwhile, as always, Wikipedia has a nice introduction. From skimming through the article, it appears that we don’t know the full answer yet, though there are several hypotheses.
Of course, “we don’t know yet” doesn’t mean that there must be a supernatural explanation…
Of course not.
I just thought that might be the “leap of faith” Trent was trying to point out when it came to an Atheists point of view.
As MUCH of a leap of faith as a Theist, it is not.
Where is the leap of faith in applying rational thought and objective evidence to demonstrate that gods do not exist?
This is admittedly a pet peeve of mine for it is part of the larger effort of those who value faith over reality and reason to give the appearance of diminishing reason so that at some point being reasonable and being of faith are identical.
There seems to be the belief for some who cherish faith that if anyone with a differing view is not omniscient, then their arguments and conclusions are identical to those based upon mere faith. This is simply not true. I can come to literally any conclusion/belief via faith. I can believe anything at all no matter how absurd, and “justify” it by appealing to faith. In otherwords there is no basis other than my own imagination. This is not the case with the reasoned or objective position. One cannot simply dream up whatsoever pleases him at a given moment and declare that this must be true because those claims will be compared to reality to verify or falsify the conclusion. Herein lay the key difference of course: there is nothing which can even in principle ever falsify or verify a faith based claim, but all claims about reality can be compared to reality to determine the truth of the claim. For the faith based position, merely belief is the starting and ending point. For the reasoned individual, the reasoned argument, reality always has the final say, where the two are in agreement the conclusion is true, where they are in opposition it is the conclusion which is false. Faith based arguments simply deny that reality can even in principle disprove the conclusion/belief.
So no, the two are not in fact identical, and no there is no leap of faith necessary for the reasoned position.
To look at the question of life from a meta-level and to demonstrate that it is in fact a non-starter, ask the same question of your god notion. If you accept the answer that “god” has always existed, then you should identically accept the answer from another that life always existed. If you do not accept the latter then you are applying at least two separate standards. If on the other hand you have explanations like “god created himself” then so too must you (logically speaking) accept as explanation that “life created itself.” Every explanation for the creation of the “god” notion can be applied to the universe, life, etc. Now applying Occham’s Razor… why would we introduce this complex and inherently contradictory (thus impossible) entity into the equation?
The leap of faith would be in where life comes from. Since there are many theories, a god being one of them, and none of them so far have been proven, to believe in any one would require a leap of faith.
Of course there is no physical evidence of God, and plenty of physical evidence pointing towards different physical theories, but fact is, nobody knows.
[quote post="163"]If you accept the answer that “god” has always existed, then you should identically accept the answer from another that life always existed.[/quote]
I can’t quite grasp that one though TX. If a God created life at some point, then believing both wouldn’t work. If I’m missing something let me know, I don’t want to missunderstand.
TX- I’m sure you’ll understand that this post is basically just a question, or a thought, and NOT an offensive gesture towards you.
I don’t mean to double post, but tomorrow calls.
[quote post="163"]Faith based arguments simply deny that reality can even in principle disprove the conclusion/belief.[/quote]
My ONLY problem with that, is the word “reality”. (Stay with me a second, incase you’ve already throwm me toward the insane.) Because maybe your version of reality is only that which is physical. I disagree with that.
Surely, I won’t be respected one bit after this reply. But I feel the need to say, that all that is physical is not all that IS.
String theory, insists on more than our known physical dimensions are at work. To quote Wikipedia: “String theory is thought to include some 10, 11 or 26 dimensions, depending on the specific theory and on the point of view.”
JUST a question.. I guess part 1? … Is string theory forbid by atheists? (JUST A QUESTION… I DON”T KNOW, otherwise I wouldn’t ask)
Basically, what I am trying to state is, we usually depend on all that IS physical to determine what IS, or ISN’T. Are we really ready to say all that is physical IS all that is? Are we really “okay” with using only what we know as PHYSICAL laws to dictate our beliefs, as far as the UNIVERSE, or EVERYTHING, goes?
Now I’m NOT the smartest person on Earth, so I can ask a question to everybody else. Are those “Extra” dimensions (Question 2 I guess…in string theory at least), subject to the same physical laws as the dimensions WE know?
If they are, then I can’t claim a lack of ANY evidence. But if they aren’t, then we know jack. (As far as string theory goes, of course)
God of the Gaps… I know.
But in my own PERSONAL opinnion, nobody knows jack as far as what LIFE is , isn’t, what happens afterward, and what happened before.
String theory isn’t my only reason for believing this.
As far as my own opinnion, I believe that atheists think only in the physical TANGEABLE laws, (So far) that they can immediately come to a conclusion to, when it comes to OTHER physical possibilities. Such as physical consequences. But when it comes to possibilites that have ANY factor other than the physical, it’s illogical, impossible… forbidden. (JUST A POINT OF VIEW, mind you)
I (personally) DON’T believe that physical laws, govern ALL that is. I believe in more than what is physical. What PHYSICAL proof do I have of his? NONE, how could I?
Do I believe myself to be RIGHT, over others? Sure. (We ALL do.. deny it if you want) If I didn’t, I wouldn’t state it as MY OPINNION. But that doesn’t mean I’m not willing to concider other possibilities. After all… if I believe that physical laws are not ALL laws, how could I think that other possibilities, aren’t possibilities?
So (a question to TX, and anybody else) What reality is it you go by? Your own? You could say that in YOUR reality, abortion is wrong, because they’re killing a life that could, potentially be something great, OR someone so humble that they don’t question others, j000000000000ust try to make them better, and the denial of any life that could be such a thing is wrong. OR someone could say that IN YOUR REALITY abortion is right, because nobody could have that chance if the parents weren’t either willing, financial, OR mentally stable to give such an infant even that chance?
THAT of couse, is just an example, for the case of arguement.
I’m just trying to show that reality can be purely subjective, and circumstantial, and anybody who has a claim that they are “RIGHT” when it comes to the universe, have (JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, including me) A LOT TO LEARN.
GRRR… JOOOOOOOOOOOO is a typo… disregard please, it’s : just
“I can’t quite grasp that one though TX. If a God created life at some point, then believing both wouldn’t work. If I’m missing something let me know, I don’t want to missunderstand.”
What I was saying was that if X excuse is acceptable for th e”god” “justification” then necessarily it is acceptable for the reality explanation. If you are willing to accept sans any evidence that “god” always existed, then necessarily one must also for identical reasons accept that life always existed.
As for the rest, it honestly seems that you are trying to confuse empiracism with atheism so as to attack one by the “fauls” of the other. Let me completely destroy the entire approach with a rather simple example. I do not deny wind exists, though I cannot see it. Wind is not “tangible” in the way that you are using the word, yet there are rational and yes real explanations for it. That we cannot see it does not lend any evidence or strength to the other arguments in which we cannot see the theoretical impossible entities…
Reality is what is. Nothing more nor less. As for the EXTREMELY ABSURD notion that there are multiple realities, I would suggest that equivocation remains a logical fallacy for DAMN good reason. At this point you are merely abusing the term “reality” to refer to mere perception, where the two are not merely not identical but are far from similar.
As soon as you claim that “reality” is subjective, then necessarily you are referring to either something other that reality itself, else to nothing at all. You might as well be claiming tha tsimple arithemetic is subjective, or that gravity is subjective, or the like.
TX-AH.
You can’t accept one and not accept the other. Is this wrong?
Mathematics is another of the PHYSICAL laws that I meant when I asked if those laws are governed by all of the “dimensions” in string theory.
The question :
[quote post="163"]Is string theory forbid by atheists?[/quote]
remains unanswered.
[quote post="163"]As for the rest, it honestly seems that you are trying to confuse empiracism with atheism so as to attack one by the “fauls” of the other. Let me completely destroy the entire approach with a rather simple example. I do not deny wind exists, though I cannot see it. Wind is not “tangible” in the way that you are using the word, yet there are rational and yes real explanations for it. That we cannot see it does not lend any evidence or strength to the other arguments in which we cannot see the theoretical impossible entities…[/quote]
In all honesty, I don’t know what “empiracism” is, so I have no way to comment about that. Further, I admittedly don’t know too much about the subject, in fact I mostly asked questions, so why would I try to “Confuse empiricism with atheism”?
As far as “TANGEABLE” goes, let me redirect that one. (Though wind in MY perspective IS “tangeable” we can feel it. It seems I just had a problem with spelling, (Actual spelling Tangible) as the webster dictionairy explains it as:
“capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch.”
As for my sense of the word… that’s actually exactly what I meant, IE, it’s physica, and if you haven’t noticed yet, you can feel the wind.
[quote post="163"]Reality is what is. Nothing more nor less. As for the EXTREMELY ABSURD notion that there are multiple realities, I would suggest that equivocation remains a logical fallacy for DAMN good reason. [/quote]
Since the string theory question has not been answered yet, I can’t comment on this, and in all actuality neither can you.. unless of course, you know the answer to the question. (If you do, let me know. I’m asking questions more than making claims here) Might I add that you didn’t answer it?
The fact that I asked questions mostly, and you not only did not answer them, but treated them as some sort of attack, I have to suggest that you answer them instead of treating them as such.
[quote post="163"]As soon as you claim that “reality” is subjective, then necessarily you are referring to either something other that reality itself, else to nothing at all. You might as well be claiming tha tsimple arithemetic is subjective, or that gravity is subjective, or the like.[/quote]
Again, not an answer to the question. Is reality something you know for sure, or is it something in your perspective, as PHYSICAL only? Arithmatic is based on that of THIS dimension. (I don’t CLAIM that other dimensions exist.. it’s still in question) As gravity is something governed by the physical law of Gravity. Still, no answer to the questions.
Kren,
I like your post and your questions… although I readily confess I have no answers for you. Although I think I understand your stance on ‘reality.’ I struggle with understanding this concept myself.
Keep asking the questions… I am interested as well to hear TX’s response.
I want to correct something to TX, Explaining the wind thing, it’s merely a poor example of something that’s intangible. It IS tangible. A better example would be something like light, but before you post about light being intangible, keep in mind it’s still physical, as a form of energy.
I looked up empiricism. Perhaps I was mixing the two, empiricism and Atheism. However, that doesn’t mean that to be one, means not being the other. I figured an Atheist was someone who just didn’t believe in God, weather or not for logical reasons. You and Pedro are Atheist for logical reasons. Either way, this is far from an answer.
[quote post="163"]Reality is what is. Nothing more nor less. As for the EXTREMELY ABSURD notion that there are multiple realities, I would suggest that equivocation remains a logical fallacy for DAMN good reason.[/quote]
Equivocation is a logical fallacy which happens when someone uses one word twice, as two different meanings, implying that the word means the same thing both times.
I don’t see how equivocation denies other dimensions. It’s a play on words, not on reality. As far as reality is what is, I asked if reality is all that is PHYSICAL to you. Do you mean that all that is PHYSICAL is all that is?
BTW-
[quote post="163"]Is string theory forbid by atheists? [/quote]
Is a yes or no question. Of course an elaboration is welcome.
[quote post="163"]Are those “Extra” dimensions (Question 2 I guess…in string theory at least), subject to the same physical laws as the dimensions WE know?[/quote]
This is also a yes or no question. I can’t seem to find any data on it though.
Commenting on the OP and trying not to get mixed up in this web of arguments. Heh, sorry.
@Kren: None of this is directed at you, buddy.
I think this is another example of the “One Opinion” style of argument religious people often take, because christianity, indeed religion in general has hijacked good morales (Kindness, pacifism etc), and called them values, it’s often seen as a bad thing to be against a religion, on the basis that religion teaches good morales.
WHAT THE HELL?!
I’m an atheist, hell I’m verging on existentialism, but I still feel like I’m a good person, I try and live my life as well as possible etc BLAH BLAH BLAH no alcohol BLAH BLAH BLAH Despite 16 y.o. BlAH no drugs.
But ultimatley, as Nietzsche said, “There are no moral Phenomena, only moral perceptions of phenomena”, and no matter what poor Pedro, or indeed any atheist does, we’re still going to be seen as bad or evil, because, despite representing almost everything wrong in our society, religon has nicley hijacked everything we should be, and told us we’re evil if we’re not one of them.
Great work, guys.
I particular enjoy the logical arguments you use to support your views. They point to thoughts that’s been pondered on. If anything we read your blog because of the strong opinion so we can value that against our own and make further improvement in how we think. At least that’s why I read, don’t know about others.
Kren,
I am not an expert on string theory, but this in no way prevents me (or anyone) from being aware of the meaning of language. All of the questions with regard to string theory are red herrings.
Not sure why you are trying to introduce the notion that refutations and answers are indications of some emotional response in my part. What purpose does this tactic serve? Is it merely a subtle ad hominem?
As for reality being merely physical, I’ve not adopted that peculiar position, and certainly need not. Again, this appears to be a red herring.. It is impossible to answer your question “what reality do you go by” because the question itself is literally nonsensical. You assume the impossible, that being that there exists something other than all that exists.
The equivocation I pointed out does not deny other dimensions. The problem is that you were using “reality” to refer to mere perception but also to that which exists. The two meanings are not identical by any stretch.
As for the absence of a belief in an impossible entity causing a block that will not allow one to believe in possible descriptions of reality, well I believe spelling out the question as I have here pretty well provides the answer. Clearly if we were to discover that reality was indeed made up of multiple dimensions other than those of which we are already aware, the rational person will of course not deny this. In no way does this open the door for making “god” less impossible..
Kren,
I find that when a question occurs that TX does not like he immediately labels it as a red herring. At the same time, if he asks a question of you that you do not answer, it is evasion. Keep asking the questions… someone out there will eventually be able to answer them!
TX- [quote post="163"]I am not an expert on string theory, but this in no way prevents me (or anyone) from being aware of the meaning of language. All of the questions with regard to string theory are red herrings.[/quote]
All of the questions in regard to string theory, were just questions. I think I made that pretty clear.
You’re not an expert on it, niether am I, and I couldn’t find too much about it when it comes to the “Dimensions” needed for it to work. It is an interesting thing to think about though.
Anyways, the first question, I think I answered for myself. IF I was right when I stated:
[quote post="163"]I figured an Atheist was someone who just didn’t believe in God, weather or not for logical reasons.[/quote]
If it’s true, than denying string theory isn’t something an Atheist would need to do.
[quote post="163"]The equivocation I pointed out does not deny other dimensions. The problem is that you were using “reality” to refer to mere perception but also to that which exists. The two meanings are not identical by any stretch.[/quote]
I see, my bad. I see my flaw in relating to a relative reality. So many things IN reality are relative, and sometimes I can’t help it. Sorry.
As for multiple dimensions… I think that there are other things in science that have pointed toward that possibility. I’ll post again if I can find them again.
ONE question that I’ve been meaning to ask ANYBODY, is this:
(Nobody here has to answer, but feel free if you know, I just think it might be wonder inspiring)
If things gain mass as they get closer to C, where does that extra mass come from?
HERE is what I was talking about.
Maybe someone here can disprove this, but I’v heard of this a few times and always wondered about ti.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cp0zBZcwnE
A cartoon yes, but is it true, if so, does it not give wieght toward perception?
Another one of my Fucked up (BTW, Pedro, if you wish me not to swear, just let me know) questions. When it comes to reality, is perception not important?
Jim,
Why the ad hominem? Why the blatantly false accusations based solely upon your own presumptions of omniscience? You have no notion at all of my intentions, which is not surprising given the you seem to be unable or unwilling to truly characterize what has been said. Perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with what constitutes a red herring, unfamiliar with the term, or simply contrary, I honestly do not know, but regardless as objective fact, the questions are not relevant to the issue, therefore by definition are red herrings.
Does that mean that they could not be answered or are not interesting in a different context? nope.. It simply means that as they were originally offered, they have no impact on the issue one way or the other, that is to say that they neither shed additional light on the subject nor cast doubt on the arguments or facts already present. Take issue with this fact if you like, but as always that will not change the fact. Certainly trying to dishonestly attack me as a person, pretending that it has anything at all to do with my own preferences (which are not at issue, nor evident here) is distasteful to say the least.
I used to be an atheist too, probably for about 5 years or so. Then I realized I wasn’t an atheist. I was just an agnostic. I found out I could never whether or not there is a supreme being. It is, I believe, beyond my comprehension.
*I could never tell. Sorry. Was feeling a bit woozy.
RE: anti-religion bias
Oh they of the ultimate religious bias haveth their panties in a bunch because thou refuseth to kisseth their asps. Projection, methinks thou name be theist.
In other words, have you noticed how religious blogs can blog about angels, spirits, demons and gods until the cows come mooing home? But, apparently, you are ’sposed to be a good little, quiet, atheist amd say nothing about the religious bias in their blogs.
Pinoy: thanks for the comment.
I’ve addressed the problem of agnosticism before; please see here for a list of posts.
Please see, also, my reply to Trent, above.
And I hope you enjoy the blog.
Not much into religion. That’s why I haven’t been reading most of the posts here. But I pop in once in a while to catch up with novelties and so.
TX - I just like to see you use the term “ad hominem.”
Just because you have an opinion, and it happens to be right, doesnt exclude you from having a bias. Accually, it is the cause. Everyone has an opinion, and therefore you have one. You write articles for this site, and your opinion has a direct effect upon what you write. That is a bias. Not being indifferent causes you having a bias. You are athiest, therefore your articles on religion will obviously have an anti-religion bias. Its all well and good, because if you didnt have a bias, an opionion, a view point on andy topic, you would be a very dull person.
Sean: I don’t think “bias” is the correct word for that. As I said at the beginning, a bias is something that “prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question”. It’s not simply having an opinion, it’s something more irrational.
Jim - I believe TX is trying to (rightfully) enforce logical rigor to the discussion. When he says stuff about red herrings and ad hominem arguments, he is referencing accepted basic definitions for logical argument. A red herring is an argument which distracts one from the original argument, attempting to imply incorrectness by association. For example, if I told you I could prove apples are red, and you said I can’t be right because I can’t prove oranges are green, you have proposed a red herring. What I can or can’t prove about oranges has nothing to do with what I can prove about apples. Likewise, what I can or can’t prove about string theory has nothing to do with what I can or can’t prove about religion.
As for ad hominem arguments, they are defined as attacks on the speaker of a claim, rather than on the merits of a claim itself. Just because I am a theif doesn’t mean when I say “stealing is wrong,” I am making an invalid statement. The merits of the statement, not the stater, are the only logically relevant topic. Also, TX, you made a bit of an ad hominem argument in response to Jim’s… tsk, tsk.
Pinoy - You’re the opposite of me. I was an agnostic, then an atheist. I couldn’t find enough evidence to support not finding enough evidence to support the existence of a god. I have some vague notion of anthropic principle/many worlds quantum theory/random chance/imaginary reality floating around in my head, and god is not only not necessary but also not likely in my line of thinking.
Kren - Suprised you haven’t had an answer yet to your question about string theory. Let me preface this by agreeing with TX that string theory is a red herring to the real question, but I still think you want some answers.
I believe string theory could certainly be true, but highly doubt god. String theory offers something testable. Right now, there are mathematical theories of the universe involving 10, 11, or even 26 (unlikely from what I’ve read) dimensions. Of all these dimesions, only 3 (+ time) are visible, though all are physical in the sense that they exist. The other dimensions might be too small to see, rolled up into little universes of their own, form the fabric of strings themselves, or any number of other explanations.
For me, the important point is that all of these possibilities are testable. At some point, if someone claims one of these possibilities is true, they will have to provide evidence. String theory must be demonstrated with evidence before I accept it as true. I might entertain it as a possibility without evidence, but I can never accept it without proof. God, on the other hand, is not provable, except with accepting him/her/it/them through “faith.” “Faith” by definition implies that evidence is not required for acceptance. Sure, there are “miracles” and the Bible and lots of other stuff that gets pointed to as proof of god, but none of it is scientifically valid. How many people have died of terminal cancer despite the prayers of hundreds? I’ll bet more than survived (I know unfounded conjecture about a random topic is not a valid argument, but really, come on). So yes, I can believe in string theory and not god. Or god and not string theory. Or both. Or neither. All I want is evidence. The desire for evidence is empiricism at the core. Atheism is (partly) empiricism applied to religion. No statistically significant evidence exists for religion on the scale of humanity. This doesn’t mean atheism and empiricism are the same, though… they interact, like using a screwdriver to make a table. Empricism is a tool for examining something, atheism is a conclusion about a question.
As to the origin of life… lots of ways to take that question. Could be that all possible universes exist, and we happen to be in one in which life can exist (that’s my still-developing understanding of many worlds quantum theory). Could be that given certain initial conditions, life is very likely. All you really need is DNA (or comparably behavining molecule) to begin to replicate itself. Or even going back to the origin of the universe, perhaps a random quantum fluctuation caused the big bang. Or the force of the last big crunch. Or an infinite stack of tortises has existed forever, and the universe is on them. The point is lots of explanations, in fact infinite explanations, exist for the origin of life, and not being able to say which is right is not proof that God made everything. The origin of life and the universe is a question which requires affirmitive proof, that is, proof which shows something is true, rather than proof that shows something is false.
Great site, great discussions. Keep it coming!
Shawn
Shawn,
You are incorrect in your claim that there exists any ad hominem in my responses to Jim. Yes I pointed out the objective fact that his tactics, such as his frequently reliance upon ad hominem rather than honest discussion, are distasteful (which is the mildest way to put it) but this is not an ad hominem by any stretch of the imagination. No where can you find an example of “X claim is wrong because Jim is X sort of person.”
Shawn,
Awesome reply. I especially like how you point out infinite possibilities of the origin of life. I think I can really see an Atheists point of view after all this.
Shawn,
I know what TX is trying to do. And I am familiar with both the concepts of ad hominem and red herrings. And I have to concede that, as much as I thought I knew about logic, I am not on the same playing field as TX with regard to my understanding of making logical arguments… or following anothers. That, or the fact that I have a job that I choose to spend my time and energy on means that I am not able to spend the time necessary to really try to understand his arguments.
TX,
Maybe your comments to me do not constitute an ad hominem attack… but the vehemence in your argument makes it feel that way. I enjoy being a teacher… not for the “power” it gives me over others, but for those moments when you can actually see a student open her/his mind to new possibilities. When you attack, yes… attack (it does not matter to me if you use logic to do this or not), then I will of course become defensive. However, no longer. Several posts ago I decided it was no longer worth engaging in a discussion with you. I do not have the facility with words that you do, and regardless of how I phrase my argument to say one thing, you turn it to tell me that I have said the opposite. In my opinion, this is a flaw in my ability to write, not in what I have to say.
We will not agree on this issue… and at this point nothing you can say will change that. Let me just say, and you can take this as an ad hominem if you wish, but it is meant as constructive criticism. When you said you tutored logic, I hope you used a little more compassion when judging your students arguments…
jim,
I understand the motivation for mischaracterizing what has happened and what I have done, I even understand why you would import blatant falsehoods, but that understanding does not cause me to pretend that those falsehoods are anything less than what they are. As for attacking, I have left that entirely up to you, look again to the thread on teaching and notice that you reacted emotionally to the very suggestion that government schools are less than ideal and necessary. So this notion that you are getting “defensive” is quite frankly complete nonsense. You are “getting defensive” in the same way that Bush is using “self-defense” in Iraq…
As for turning your arguments, again you are making an objectively false claim. I have not turned any of your claims or arguments. Unfortunately you are choosing to mischaracterize the REFUTATION of some claim or argument that you make as “turning” it.
BTW You ought not make assumptions about the experiences and lives of others in the absence of information, and no the attempted slight was not missed. As for your appeal to emotion, well it too is of course a fallacy, as well as the insult it was intended to be. Fortunately I always had the best reviews from students, though I also gave the hardest workloads and set the highest standards. In no small part this is because I am honest with my students, not playing emotional games, mischaracterizing what they said, and generally disrespecting them as individuals. You said you teach math, and you have offered compassion in place of reason and accuracy as the standard by which subjects (not individuals) ought to be judged. I wonder if you apply those same standards to your own subject of math such that if a student “feels” that basic arithematic is erroneos, then you are oblligated by your standards to simply grant them full credit despite the incorrect answers and the failure to understand the material… (This btw is just another way to demonstrate the invalidity of the argument you offer)
Rather than reacting emotionally to the idea that some position of yours could possibly be mistaken, that is to say that it is in conflict with reality, why not drop the nonsense, the personal attacks, and the blatant mischaracterizations and simply address the issues and subjects? Do you get so personal when someone divides your favorite number?
Refutations are not attacks. Ideas are not our children.
TX -
Apparently you did not understand my last comment on being compassionate. That is not an attack, that is an observation based on your characterization of how I would assess a student’s work. Compassion is how you approach and deal with another person. If a student makes a mistake in a math problem, I do not ask them nor judge them on how they “feel” about their work and leave it at that. Compassion informs me as to how to deal with them about it, do I send them to the board and ridicule them? Do I ask them questions to help them see the answer? Do tell them they would be no good at math and just give up? Do I instruct them with a list of rules to follow given a similar situation?
Before you read these questions as a reflection on my teaching… they are not. However, they do demonstrate what I mean by saying that how I choose to help the student understand (and thus correct) their mistakes is what I meant by compassionate. I have no doubt you had good reports - many bad teachers (of which I AM NOT lumping you into) can also show good reports. You say that you had the hardest workloads, as if that is a badge of honor. Without knowing what your workload required I cannot offer judgement as to whether it was a good thing or not, but quantity is not a measure of quality.
I am conceding this argument (about schools in general) not because I feel you have made your point, but because I do not have the time to more clearly elucidate mine. You do not know what is in my mind, so you have no basis to judge my statement that what I wrote is necessarily what I meant.
Bring it on…
TX-
You are right, there was no ad hominem in your comments to Jim. I take it back. I perhaps was more reacting to the tone and trying to be a little funny, and neither of these invalidate your comments.
Everyone-
I must say this site contains some of the most intelligent discussion about religion, society, and so on. It’s really a pleasure to interact with you.
I think Jim picks up the same vibe from TX as I used to. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but everytime I read his statements I would get the feeling that he’s putting someone down. Of course, that’s just a feeling.
TX- IMO, you could actually avoid some missunderstandings, by using some simpler terms and arguements.
Jim and Kren,
What you are mislabeling a “vibe” is simply the same old problem that Socrates (and countless others) dealt with through the ages: emotional reaction to non-emotional argument. I read your complaints as ONLY complaints THAT your claims were refuted, your argument criticized by objective and verifiable standards. I agree with you that I do not play the little games like pretending that X=-X or that a false claim is true because of some emotional appeal, but this fact does not support your assumptions about your own “knowledge” about my intentions, abilities, goals, etc.
Look to what you say “You do not know what is in my mind, so you have no basis to judge my statement that what I wrote is necessarily what I meant.” and “I read his statements I would get the feeling that he’s putting someone down.”
Both of these statements presume “knowledge” not in existence, but also appeal strictly to emotion not merely in the absence of evidence but in direct contradiction to the available evidence. No Jim I have no idea what is actually in your mind. I could assume as you have all too often done, that I know what is in the mind (and heart) of others and simply proclaim that they are in error in what they “really” mean, but instead I limit my refutations to the claims and arguments offered. By avoiding the ad hominems you find so appealing, I avoid commenting on the person at all. Which goes directly to Kren’s notion that I am insulting people by addressing arguments. Ideas are not our children. When an argument that we offer is proved invalid or unsound, we are not lessened by it, much less insulted by whomsoever has pointed out this objective verifiable fact. Yet, this is exactly what you must assume in order to come to the conclusion/accusation you have. No one is omniscient, nor incapable of error. Our choice is how to deal with the discovery of error. We can lash out at the individual or world when that error is shown to exist, or we can drop the false belief and re-examine the situation to (hopefully) come to a better conclusion, more well founded. Neither of these choices makes the person who might have brought the error to light better or worse, but the former does prevent us from learning and growing.
As for dumbing down arguments and pretending that everyone I am talking to is an idiot, which is how I take your suggestion Kren, I prefer to grant those with whom I interact the benefit of the doubt that they are reasonably intelligent, honest, thinking individuals. That said, the arguments offered have been quite simple, though I take your comment about the terms (such as the latin terms for specific types of logical errors) at its meaing. I use them for the clarity of meaning, especially since when I have explained WHY they are fallacies in the instance then the complaint of complexity is then thrown out, leaving one to wonder if the real complaint is exactly what it appears to be, THAT the original argument is refuted at all..
As for compassion, if your own use of personal attacks, dishonest tactics, and insults to those who hold views differing from your own is your idea of compassion Jim, I’ll not be following your suggestion there. As for myself, I stand proudly on my record both for the effectiveness of my approach teaching and for the reaction of students when all was said and done. I would however point out that it is not I that makes the assumption that I am somehow supposed to be teaching lessers here, rather I come here assuming a meeting of equals. (Again if you return to the other thread you’ll find that I was the one arguing AGAINST your statements about you being “stupid” (your word))
Is there any chance of returning to the topics and leaving behind these absurd attacks and distraction tactics?
TX-
[quote post="163"]As for dumbing down arguments and pretending that everyone I am talking to is an idiot, which is how I take your suggestion Kren, [/quote]
That’s not exactly the best way to take my suggestion.
Given the fact that this website is open to the public, not all people are going to know the definitions of words like “ad hominem”. However, EVERYBODY would know the meaning of the words “personal attack”. That’s an example, and you are right, let’s stay on topic.
Kren,
I agree with you… although I also admit that I am probably just reacting to the feeling I get from TX as I read his words. As a teacher, I have found that presentation is often as important as the information I present, regardless of how right, correct, or important the information is. At least it is if I want my students to take the time to consider what I am saying. As a result, I have decided that it is no longer worth my time taking part in any discussion with TX. I will continue to read Pedro’s posts, but I find TX’s approach too unpalatable to bother reading his responses anymore.
Enjoy.
Of course Jim I understand. I feel for you, but I understand that having others challenge your claims with facts and reason can be disconcerting to some. As a teacher myself I know just how important it is to avoid this attitude, especially since it can be and usually is contagious. Again one need only look to the brief history to see that the problem lay not in presentation but in the existence of refutation itself. Out of curiosity, what is your advice to responding to the personal attacks and other intellectually dishonest tactics which have recently come to make up the entirity of your posts? Would you simply pretend that they are accurate and true? Or would you point out the false nature, as well as the uncivil nature of them so that perhaps such behavior might in the future be avoided in preference for honest civil intellectual discussion?
I tried in vain to reason with you Jim and your responses were as likey as not to be claims that I was calling you stupid, else you would call me a satanist or whatnot. While I am far from perfect, I know that I have in fact shown a great deal of patience and self-control in responding to such provocation by you. Apparently this is deemed “unpalatable” leaving one to wonder what is palatable if not hoenst civil reasonable intellectual discussion. Which I also take to provid the clear answerfrom you to my last question concerning ceasing the personal attacks in favor of substantive discussion: “Hell NO!” (Or more likely: “Hell No, Ahole” given the vehemence with which you have pursued your personal attacks and the frequency of direct insults in your claims)
Kren, I would point out that assuming that every refutation is a personal insult is not the best way to take honest discussion either, yet this has been common in your own and in Jim’s posts. In fact Jim here even makes clear that if one disagrees with him on objective facts and reason, they are not worth bothering with, they are below contempt. As for words with which “not everyone” is familiar, perhaps we have different approaches but my own is that taught to me as a child: look up the words you do not know, or ask questions for clarification rather than attribute attitudes and intentions to me for which there is no evidence.
Still I would rather adopt the generous attitude that those with whom I interact are intelligent worthwhile individuals, than adopt the assumption that they are ignorant hate-filled idiots, even with the criticisms being along the lines of not assuming the latter…
Upon some reflection, it could be that these last few posts have been on topic, or close to it, since in essence we are discussing or at least dealing with a basic anti-intellecual bias.
[quote post="163"]Still I would rather adopt the generous attitude that those with whom I interact are intelligent worthwhile individuals, than adopt the assumption that they are ignorant hate-filled idiots, even with the criticisms being along the lines of not assuming the latter…[/quote]
My critisism assumed nothing, infact it was just an opinnion.
Maybe I was wrong, maybe you can’t avoid some missunderstandings by simplifying. I doubt it though.
Kren,
I could simplify further, as I did when I put the argument into symbolic form, but unless one is already familiar with the nature of symbolic logic, then understanding is less likely not more. It seems to me that in fact I have kept it quite simple, and that the complaints are to some degree exactly that that is the problem. I used the very simple names of the specific fallacies so as to avoid any confusion, and I am accused of implying insult. I leave off the personal attacks and emotional nonsense which only serve to confuse and distract, and I am accused of negative emotional states, else negative intentions.
I strongly suspect, and contend that there is increasing evidence, that this is simply a no win situation where no matter the approach I take (as long as I maintain my honesty, and a strong connection with reality) the criticisms will remain the same. It still seems that the core “problem” is with the existence of the refutations rather than any stylistic problems, or any of the many varied comments about my person.
I would suggest that nothing that has been said by me has been overly complex or even subtle. That said, perhaps you could point to something you believe was too complex so that we can see where we part ways on the notion of complexity. (Though I am loath to walk this path on another’s blog)
I didn’t mean to “criticise”. I was just suggesting the possible solution to the missunderstandings that seem to plague you throughout the sight. I can say this because I myself have missunderstood you before, admittedly handled it in not the best way, and Jim seems to have the same problem now.
Kren,
I’ve not expected anything other than to take the statements and arguments at face value. It simply does not get any simpler than that. As for the “solution” i pointed out that it is not possible therefore not a solution at all. How you, or Jim, takes honest, civil, sound refuations is entirely up to you; I cannot control your reactions nor would I if I could.
At some point I might stop arguing against the intellectual and honesty bias, but that should not be taken as any sort of giving over to those who oppose both..
TX-
[quote post="163"]I’ve not expected anything other than to take the statements and arguments at face value.[/quote]
Since it’s the statements and arguements that are getting confused, the one thing that you expected isn’t happening. People cant’ take at face value what they don’t understand.
[quote post="163"]As for the “solution” i pointed out that it is not possible therefore not a solution at all.[/quote]
If you did, why didn’t you just say “No, I won’t change the way I state things.” Because that would have been much SIMPLER than this:
[quote post="163"]As for dumbing down arguments and pretending that everyone I am talking to is an idiot, which is how I take your suggestion Kren, I prefer to grant those with whom I interact the benefit of the doubt that they are reasonably intelligent, honest, thinking individuals. That said, the arguments offered have been quite simple, though I take your comment about the terms (such as the latin terms for specific types of logical errors) at its meaing. I use them for the clarity of meaning, especially since when I have explained WHY they are fallacies in the instance then the complaint of complexity is then thrown out, leaving one to wonder if the real complaint is exactly what it appears to be, THAT the original argument is refuted at all..[/quote]
Which BTW is a strawman,
My position was that if you stated things more simply, you might not be missunderstood so much. NOT that you would need to (in your words) “pretending that everyone I am talking to is an idiot”.
When you look up “strawman” on wikipedia it gives this example:
Person A: I don’t think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock up children all day with no fresh air.
A specific arguement combated by a (in your own words) “dishonest” refute against something other than the actual arguement (in this case OPINNION mind you). This is amplified by the fact that you swiched my point of view to an extreme one, which is exactly what person B’s tactic above is.
Classic TX, classic.