Iggy

Freud had an ok line on that in the Future of an Illusion, I think if you dismiss the unreal and inevident parts, like you say, then it will be irreligious like Freud says. I believe Einstein was always willing to call it the other way. If you've ever read Einstein on religion I think you would find a lot of the things you've been getting at... You might like the article there. Originally in the New York Times in the 30's I think. Fair enough. I agree, though I phrased it a little differently earlier in the thread. They are "not broken necessarily". Who was that ruggedly handsome fella who said that religion would be ineradicable... normal to our species in a sense... as long as we remained a poorly evolved primate species? I wouldn't have it any other way. It is the struggle that defines us. We are normal for having something to struggle against.

I'm oddly comforted at not being accused of both. Clearly you are correct.

This of course has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do in any way with the context in which I was writing. But of course that matters not at all. Who cares whether you're violently misrepresenting someone else's position when you've got an agenda? Intellectual honesty is unimportant in the face of this great crusade! You didn't just take the out. You drove a mack truck through it Yes, I should admit I have an agenda against people who bomb embassies and throw acid in the faces of unveiled girls because of their religious beliefs. I am truly sorry that agenda felt misplaced in your presence. Of course I understand you are upset because you have this impression. I asked you three or four times to show me where I did this thing and stopped asking when you clearly couldn't. Let's look at the post: What are you proposing? What is your position? A newspaper in Denmark drew satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad making him, and his pathetic ideology, look silly. Muslims everywhere were insulted. They were offended. They marched on western embassies -- burned them -- bombed them -- trying to kill whatever westerner they could find. The cartoonist ended up in a panic room in his house in Denmark while a Muslim militiaman took an axe to the panic room door screaming that the pig is going to die for daring to insult his prophet. Yes, these people are really insulted. So, what do you suggest? Nobody satire Islam? Nobody tell them that they are stupid for thinking they get paid 72 virgins for suicide? If you speak your mind you are going to insult these people. If you tell me I can't speak my mind then you are going to insult me. So, besides telling iNow or Prometheus that they are insulting people (which isn't an argument at all) what is it that you propose? Our conversation began contentious because you thought I was comparing you to the Danish cartoon protestors. But, I think any fair minded person can look at that post and see that isn't the case at all. You've obviously picked up on my disdain for the axe-wielding maniac and assumed that disdain was pointed at you. My intention was to give an example where a large number of theists were insulted by something that is unavoidable and ask what you propose we do about it. I suspected you would answer that insulting theists is unavoidable when it is unavoidable, and you wouldn't, in that case, have a problem. Perhaps I could have been more clear in separating your comment from their actions, but that connection honestly did not occur to me. I didn't think of you as a theist who was being offended. It did not cross my mind that you might think I was comparing you to them. That connection makes no sense to me even now. To be clear, I did not compare you to the protestors. I did not imply any correlation between your position and their actions. I am saying now that I did not mean to subtly suggest anything like that. It is understandable to be upset if you think someone is comparing you to a murderous crazy person. I get that. Misunderstandings happen, especially with people we don't know, and it is very good we clear them up. To be very clear: if I thought you were comparable in any way to violent protestors I would say so directly and make no apologies for it. I haven't made that comparison because it wouldn't make sense. i realize I very often fail to, but I do always try to make good sense.

No, certainly not all religious people and certainly not all religious beliefs. But, that really is why I started where I did. It is noteworthy just how many theists are extremely insulted (incited to violence so great is the insult) by nothing more than supporting a free press in Denmark. I understand your other positions and I find them agreeable, but I think it is not so cut and dry to say that you don't feel the need to insult theists -- that you're content to say it is bad philosophy. I think it is unavoidable... just being a skeptic and supporting certain liberties means that you are insulting the religious beliefs of a significant fraction of the world's population. If you are born into a Muslim family in Iran then all you really have to say is "I've begun to doubt the existence of God" and they can sentence you to death for the terrible insult those words are to your family, your country, your Imam, and your prophet. That is to say... calling their most cherished theistic beliefs "bad philosophy" is insulting enough to get you put to death. I'm glad to see you say, But I would rather say that I support satire and insult even when they do not productively persuade people to abandon their false beliefs, because to me the problem is almost never the skeptic's insult to false beliefs, but the theist's determination to be insulted for their false beliefs. I'm sorry to keep making this look like a diatribe, but I think it is really serious. People lose their lives for speaking their mind about theism, and the reaction of too many people has been that there is no need to insult the faith of theistic people. Western countries pass laws against blasphemy as if that were the problem. I have friends who grew up where they couldn't insult religion and their psyche was damaged for it. There is a need to insult false religious beliefs. For the health of a person and the health of a society, it is absolutely necessary.

If you're speaking out against the theistic beliefs of Muslims who do these things, and doing so insults quite a large number of them, then by force of logic you are insulting the theistic beliefs of these people. I have only two questions. 1... why tell iNow that his post is insulting if you, yourself, are fine insulting a large number of Muslim people? 2... why say that you "find no need to insult theists"? If you favor saying things like "hey, respect your women, please!" then you favor insulting the religious beliefs of a large number of theists. You apparently do find the need to insult them... and that's good. If they get offended so easily over something so stupid they should be insulted. They seem to value the experience.

If speaking out against people pouring acid on the unveiled faces of girls insulted their theistic beliefs, would you be in favor of doing it? If printing a satirical cartoon in Denmark meant "offending a billion Muslims" would you be against doing it? That has been my question. Are you asking me what your answer is? Because... I don't know. Well... you said this: Understanding that even the smallest satire... and supporting the free expression of that satire... will be insulting to a huge number of people's religious beliefs, what is your proposition? One shouldn't insult theists for their beliefs, perhaps? You said you "find no need to insult theists", but you've got to -- even just a little -- want to support the free expression of satire. I mean, even if it insults quite a lot of theists... you've got to want to support a free press just a little. No? I didn't suggest you did. More of the same. Any response other than showing me where I implied it or apologize is academically dishonest at this point. I have said nothing to slander you. I've said previously in the topic that I couldn't say that belief in god makes for a broken person. I must have committed this novel slander thing for some other reason than our disagreement on that point. I accused you of nothing of the sort. Knowing that nothing more than supporting a free press will be needed to insult the theistic beliefs of many theists, are you against insulting the theistic beliefs of many theists? If you aren't against it then why are you pointing out that iNow's post is insulting? Noting that something is insulting isn't an argument of any kind. What is your position? For what reason do you point it out, in other words?

I am *extremely* insulted by your continued mischaracterization of what I said. My point was that a very large number of Muslims would be insulted by the smallest satirical statement. I did not compare, equate, or in any way imply a connection between their conduct and your statements. I wouldn't understand such a comparison. Muslims are insulted and you're pointing out that they are insulted... therefore... what? You are somehow similar? It makes no sense. Please, show me exactly where I implied this comparison or apologize. Please show me where I "denied insulting anyone". The point of my post was exactly the opposite of that. I also didn't say or imply "we might as well just go all out with insults". I haven't been that hard to understand. I have to think that your only means of replying to me is mischaracterizing me because you are deflecting away from the very simple question I asked. When someone stones a woman accused of adultery to death for their theistic beliefs -- when acid is poured in the unveiled face of a girl because god deems it necessary -- you are satisfied saying "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it". I am not satisfied with that, and I hope you would not disparage other people who do choose to speak up against, and insult directly, such stupidity.

It is exactly relevant because it demonstrates that a large number of people are determined to be insulted at the smallest satirical statement. To say that a person has insulted the parties of God means nothing more than a person freely and sensibly speaking rational things. Nowhere did I compare being respectful to endorsing the rioters. I expect you'll either show me exactly where I said or implied anything of the sort or have the decency to apologize. Those choices are not mutually exclusive and not something that I compared. You do, however, have to choose between insulting a large number of people, and "questioning the belief". If you live in Iran and question Muslim beliefs they are insulted enough to sentence you to death. If you would have iNow and Prometheus not insult the parties of God then you would have to be asking them not to say what they believe about religion and the religious. The thread can be closed in that case because nobody affirming the motion of the OP can acknowledge it. Again, I didn't mention this ground you speak of or deny it has a middle. It sounded like a diatribe because I asked the same question 4 times. I did that because I thought it would provoke an answer. It did not. I did not make an argument, but speaking of bad ones... nothing that you just said answered or addressed anything that I said. 100% of it was a misrepresentation or a deflection away from my very simple question.

What are you proposing? What is your position? A newspaper in Denmark drew satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad making him, and his pathetic ideology, look silly. Muslims everywhere were insulted. They were offended. They marched on western embassies -- burned them -- bombed them -- trying to kill whatever westerner they could find. The cartoonist ended up in a panic room in his house in Denmark while a Muslim militiaman took an axe to the panic room door screaming that the pig is going to die for daring to insult his prophet. Yes, these people are really insulted. So, what do you suggest? Nobody satire Islam? Nobody tell them that they are stupid for thinking they get paid 72 virgins for suicide? If you speak your mind you are going to insult these people. If you tell me I can't speak my mind then you are going to insult me. So, besides telling iNow or Prometheus that they are insulting people (which isn't an argument at all) what is it that you propose?

I should should stress that my point was that morality could be objective and empirical and belief in it not as broken as belief in god. Morality is not exactly the same as 'what a person should do' or 'what is right for a person to do'. I should also date my girlfriend. It is the right thing for me to do. Considering my goals, my desires, all the things I want to give, and want to receive -- she is right for me. This has nothing to do with morality, and it is hugely subjective. Morality is the tendency to value others just like egotism and self-dignity are tendencies to value oneself. They are all qualities without which humanity couldn't do, so there are obviously additional concerns besides morality when a person makes a subjective decision about what action is right. When a society makes laws morality is also not their only guidepost. Not every immoral act is illegal, and not every statute is written to prevent immorality or to ensure morality. So... you guys say that even if something is objectively and empirically deemed to be moral that doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. I couldn't agree more. Giving all my money to charity would be a very moral act, but I wouldn't call it right for me. Killing myself so that my organs could be donated to 8 people who would otherwise die -- that would be extraordinarily moral, but not necessarily what I should do. I do, therefore, completely agree with you both. I can prove objectively and deductively that destroying humanity doesn't value others and benefit the group. If someone wants to define morality differently so that it aligns with their broken moral compass -- that is to say, if someone wants to define morality such that it is morally good to destroy humanity, it isn't my job to prove that definition wrong (although I think I easily could). If nobody else understands "morality" to mean what this guy thinks it means then he is just talking nonsense. It is no different from people who want to define murder such that killing a pig is murder. You don't have to prove these people wrong. You don't have to prove that killing a pig *isn't* murder. The fact that nobody agrees with their definition is enough for their point to be a nonsense statement. That is a good analogy, and I agree. My original point was that defining morality as "subjective judgements about what is right and wrong" is not useful and it leads to unuseful conclusions. Like Pirsig said: no geometry is more true than another -- just more useful. I think it is a fine analogy for a definition. The reason morality is usefully defined the way I defined it is because evolution has provided humans with certain tendencies, and the tendency to value others is one of them. It allows us to function in groups because we are much more effective as a cooperative group than as hostile individuals. So... there is some objective basis for the usefulness of that definition.

I don't see how you can figure that. There is no way to objectively decide if an action values others and benefits the group? An example: If I own a restaurant and I spend extra money ensuring that the food I sell exceeds heath code requirements to ensure that people will not get sick from eating it then I have done a moral thing. Objectively, by our definition, I have performed an action which values others in order to benefit the group. I can empirically and deductively show that my action meets that definition. I don't follow the argument that the definition of morality has to be "inherently right" for morals to be objective. If I defined height as "the distance between two points" would you argue that we cannot objectively measure the height of something as five meters because we don't know if "the distance between two points" is inherently right? If I defined an apple as the fruit of an apple tree would you say that we need to accept that definition as 'true' before we could evaluate empirically whether something is an apple? I know how to determine if a logical proposition is true or false, but not a definition. Words mean what they are understood to mean... they aren't true or false, or inherently right or wrong. I guess I don't understand in what sense defining a thing makes evaluations of that thing subjective.

You're a little late in the game to come back to the bullet vs light illustration. And I'm the one who said that "there is no cumulative velocity for light." Read the thread before you pop off. My examples: DH was trying to tell you earlier and I'm trying to tell you now that you are mistaken. Adding the muzzle velocity of the bullet to the velocity of the train doesn't give you the exact velocity of the bullet relative to the ground. That simple velocity addition (w=u+v) that you call "obvious" in your quote is called Galilean velocity addition, it is part of Newtonian mechanics, it is intuitive, and it is wrong. To get the exact answer for the bullet and for the laser you have to use the correct velocity addition formula: [math]w=\frac{u+v}{1+uv/c^2}[/math] It is a little more complicated than simply adding u and v, but it gives the right answer in both situations. Your assumption that the velocity of light adds differently than the velocity of the bullet is mistaken. EDIT: physics faq for velocity addition: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

It is sad to see a falsified world view turn into a religion. Earth has a secret shape that exists regardless of the shape we observe or measure earth to be. It is probably a triangle, but there is just no way of knowing. One thing is sure... whatever the intrinsic shape is -- it is the same in every frame of reference, because that is the Newtonian expectation.

I wouldn't constrain it too much. Maybe... "the tendency to value others in order to benefit the group". Some moral judgements are better and some are worse than others. This doesn't mean that morality is defined as and nothing more than "subjective judgments about what is right and wrong". In the same way... some structures are taller and some are shorter than others. This doesn't mean that height is defined as and nothing more than "subjective judgments about what is tall and short" If you didn't completely equate morality with subjective judgements about right and wrong you wouldn't come to the conclusion that it has no relation to objective reality, and you wouldn't further conclude that belief in morality is as broken as belief in god. There is no reason morality can't be evaluated objectively and empirically. I think there is a video of Harris talking about his work toward that end in this thread.

In my experience the question usually goes something like this: The muzzle velocity of a bullet fired from the front of a train plus the speed of the train gives the speed of the bullet compared to the train tracks. However, the muzzle velocity of a laser fired from the front of the train plus the speed of the train doesn't give he speed of the laser compared to the tracks. What gives? Why is light different? DH pointed out the answer in post 11, and probably others as well, but being lost in so much obstinance maybe it could be repeated. The first indented sentence is wrong. Simply adding one velocity to another doesn't give exactly the right answer. It gives very nearly the right answer at very slow speeds, but it gives increasingly bad results at increasing speeds. The bullet and the laser both follow the correct velocity addition formula. It isn't that the bullet is Newtonian and the light acts different. What if the muzzle velocity of the bullet were 99% of the speed of light and it were shot from a ship going half the speed of light relative to earth? The combined velocity would hardly be 149% of the speed of light. As intuitive as it is, simple velocity addition doesn't work.

For the promise of an eternal afterlife they're willing to gut their kid, but not for the promise of chocolate eggs?

This site explains, Being Scientific: Fasifiability, Verifiability, Empirical Tests, and Reproducibility Musings aside, the scientific method defines science such that its predictions are tested against reality. Defining morality as "subjective judgments about what is right and wrong" is like defining height as "subjective judgments about what is short and tall". I'm not doing that. I'm not defining morality in terms of right and wrong -- that's what you did, and on that tenuous basis you came up with a problematic conclusion. I didn't say it is "bad". I said it is injurious to humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it. Who decides that humans shouldn't do it? Humanity does. Murdering a lot of people may not be the best approach to protecting one's offspring.

Maybe you mean "support" rather than "verify". Scientific laws are about the nature of reality and are not verifiable. To paraphrase the second law of thermodynamics: "there are no perpetual motion machines" -- it is a statement about reality and nothing you could do would verify it. I keep making the same point and given your response I must be making it very badly. I cannot prove that your notion of "right and wrong" are objectively or empirically correct. In the same way, you can't prove that my notion of "tall and short" are objectively or empirically correct. Because your notion of right and wrong aren't empirically correct or incorrect you've concluded that moral judgements are not judgments about reality. Because my notion of tall and short aren't empirically correct or incorrect should I conclude that judgements about height aren't judgments about reality? The problem I see is that you've left "right and wrong" incomplete and undefined in the same way that "tall and short" are incomplete and undefined. "Murder is wrong" is an incomplete ethical statement. Drawing deductive conclusions about its validity is fraught with trouble for that reason alone. "Murder is injurious to humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it" is closer to a complete and meaningful ethical statement, and it is empirical in exactly the same way that "humans shouldn't reject God because it makes for a painful afterlife" is not empirical. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Never really understood this argument. So if god made morals, what makes them necessarily right, compared to man made morals? They were both made. no, I don't think divine morality would necessarily be better than mortal morality -- even if god were real. I meant that questions like "does nihilism advance humanity" could be empirically answered using an entirely secular toolkit. It doesn't take divine warrant to answer moral questions like that.

When I said "I could just as easily cite material no less credible directly opposed to what you're saying" I meant that the second quote would contradict the first: While the second quote contradicts the first I actually didn't mean to imply that the book Music mentioned is wrong or that the link I gave is unarguably correct -- just that it's easy to come up with a different conclusion with such an indecisive and subjective question. 100% of suicide attackers want to kill themselves and plan to kill themselves, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to say that 60% of them don't have suicidal tendencies. The article talks about psychological symptoms "unrelated to terrorism", but I think it is just as mentally unhealthy to kill yourself for religious terrorism as it is to kill yourself for depression.

I didn't conclude that anything which benefits or harms one individual does so for another. That which is positive for one person may be negative for another. I wouldn’t make a generalization like you want to attribute. No. If you think something is good and it involves absolutely no other people then by all means go right ahead. I don't see any objective problem with that. The moral judgments I've been talking about would have to involve at least two people -- and that is why ethical codes are needed and get involved. It is a form of arbitration among and between people. Society imprisons people of this sort not only because a majority find it disgusting and 'wrong', but because the practice harms society. My last post had meaning. "murder is bad" is an incomplete thought. "Murder is bad for humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it" can be evaluated objectively. Tall and short are abstract concepts. "What is tall?" really isn't a meaningful question. You need to give it more. It is abstract only because it is an incomplete idea. I never said, and I'm pretty sure nobody else said, belief that God may exist is broken. Try rephrasing your question: Why is belief in the health code not considered broken and belief that God exists considered broken? Or... try considering it from this perspective: why does the government have the right to implement health code but not implement belief in God? Without appealing to the supreme court I think the answer should be pretty obvious and I think I've answered it already. It seems like you're really stretching with this. You're demoting the value of morality in order to put it on an equal footing with God and that, in and of itself, should tell you something. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't say "murder is bad". I said "Murder is bad for humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it". My point was that "murder is bad" is an incomplete idea.

didn't he seem to think so on at least one occasion in the bible? He certainly is a might unpredictable and given to mood swings of a sort... to quote Serenity

The problem is that "murder is bad" is an incomplete thought. At the very least, "bad" needs defined in the context of the quote. "Murder is bad for humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it" is closer to a complete ethical position. The revised and complete statement isn't logically indefensible. It can be defended with a wealth of knowledge and empirical findings. God's existence can't be defended with anything like that. It is apples and oranges.

To gladly return and echo iNow's previous thoughtfulness toward me... I'm hesitant to speak out of turn without saying that he's more than capable of speaking for himself. You link a book by a secular educated political scientist with a doctorate regarding strategic air power. It is no surprise that the principle incitements he attributes to suicide attackers are secular, political, and strategic. I can't know what Pape's motivations and biases are for writing the book any more than I can know the motivations and biases of suicide killers, but I could just as easily cite material no less credible directly opposed to what you're saying... Most glaringly, they insisted that suicide terrorists are unusual because of their actions, but not psychologically abnormal. Ideologically radical, for sure, but not mentally ill. Willing to die, but not suicidal. As Jerrold Post, a prominent political psychologist and former CIA analyst explained in 2006, "One of the most striking aspects about the psychology of terrorists is that as individuals, this is normal behavior. The terrorists involved in 9/11 had subordinated their individuality to the group. And whatever their destructive, charismatic leader, Osama bin Laden, said was the right thing to do for the sake of the cause was what they would do." By this view, the 9/11 hijackers were just like most ordinary people, whom studies have shown are generally obedient to authority, even when ordered to use violence. But when it comes to the particular case of suicide terrorists, the academic evidence suggests otherwise. Research increasingly shows that many are motivated far more by personal crises, mental-health problems, and suicidal desires than by ideology or commitment to the cause. It should be little surprise, then, that terrorist recruiters often exploit the vulnerability of these desperate individuals to further their own ideological goals. For instance, when clinical psychologists in Israel recently tested 15 preemptively arrested suicide bombers, they found that 53 percent displayed depressive tendencies, 40 percent displayed suicidal tendencies, 20 percent showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, and 13 percent had previously attempted suicide, unrelated to terrorism. Dr. Adam Lankford I don't think it is so clear cut to peer into the mind of a clearly disturbed person and discern their motivations. Linda Grant wrote something I find relevant... "Some research has been done on the motives of suicide bombers, by interviewing those who failed to pull it off. Amazingly, they reported that they did it because it was cool. Now in prison, their principal request is for hair gel. I kid you not." Of course, that is the response we would expect a crazy person to give, but I think it illustrates something more meaningful about our inability to get at their real motivations. Besides which, does the act of a religious suicide attack itself demonstrate mental illness. I think so. Suicide isn't generally categorized as mentally healthy. But I'm one of those secular educated western political types who frankly doesn't give two thoughts to the idea that martyrdom is the only guaranteed way mentioned in the Quran for entering paradise. It's all Greek to me.

Electing politicians isn't an altruistic act. You'd be hard pressed to find a less appropriate application of Hamilton's rule.