tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post5581546590769702107..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Converting the religiousLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-74822474450202462532007-08-10T20:23:00.000-06:002007-08-10T20:23:00.000-06:00Note: Stephen Law has a number of recent posts abo...Note: <A HREF="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Stephen Law</A> has a number of recent posts about whether atheism (or metaphysical naturalism) is "more" of a faith position than theism.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-34304430543085648772007-08-10T18:16:00.000-06:002007-08-10T18:16:00.000-06:00David Kear: You're off-topic. If you want to ponti...David Kear: You're off-topic. If you want to pontificate, get your own blog. If you want to address my writing, find something that's directly on a relevant topic and post your comments there.<BR/><BR/>The issue at hand is whether religious people are being fraudulent when they claim their religion is reasonable. You have not addressed this issue.<BR/><BR/><I>However, where this does intersect with your post is that I am pointing out the arbitrariness of your argument in which you classify my faith as “blind” and me a liar.</I><BR/><BR/>Repeat it as often as you want, even if it were correct (and it's not) it's still a <I>tu quoque</I> fallacy.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-35365972377320790172007-08-10T17:13:00.000-06:002007-08-10T17:13:00.000-06:00Barefoot said, “I am going out on a limb in interp...Barefoot said, “I am going out on a limb in interpreting David Kear's argument as that a coherent ethical philosophy requires true objectivism.”<BR/><BR/>Actually if you want to take it a step further I am saying that every worldview system requires at its base some foundational presuppositions that cannot be verified by the procedures of natural science. I have them and you have them. My worldview presuppositions support, not only objective morality, but also universal, invariant, abstract principles while yours do not.<BR/><BR/>As an example JEM says that scientific knowledge is derived by, “Study of any material including any religious text, IF PERTINENT) Hypothesis, Predictions, Experiments, Evaluation, Confirmation”<BR/><BR/>All scientific method absolutely depends upon the uniformity of nature and that the future will be like the past. Scientists constantly deal with unseen realities, such as natural laws, names, numbers, past events, categories, future contingencies, laws of logic, individual identity over time, causation, and so forth. All of these things are universal, invariant, abstract principles that cannot be studied by natural scientific procedure but are in fact preconditions for science itself.<BR/><BR/>The claim that knowledge must be derived by natural scientific method is it self not found within the natural scientific method. It is a non-material mental construct. <BR/><BR/>You have faith in that you appeal to and even live by these universal, invariant, abstract principles that you cannot observe in any empirical way and your worldview presuppositions do not support.<BR/><BR/>I will agree with you that this is way off your topic and I don’t want to hijack your post any longer.<BR/><BR/>However, where this does intersect with your post is that I am pointing out the arbitrariness of your argument in which you classify my faith as “blind” and me a liar. Even though you have a faith that doesn’t even make sense within your own worldview.David Kearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17186331498574851542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-73173865731760162472007-08-10T14:50:00.000-06:002007-08-10T14:50:00.000-06:00Euthyphro is a still-standing argument that a thei...Euthyphro is a still-standing argument that a theistic ethical philosophy is necessarily <I>subjectivist</I>. I <I>am</I> going out on a limb in interpreting David Kear's argument as that a coherent ethical philosophy requires true objectivism.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-65822303357018846972007-08-10T14:43:00.000-06:002007-08-10T14:43:00.000-06:00No, it doesn't. Read Euthyphro. You might check Ni...<I>No, it doesn't. Read Euthyphro. You might check Nietzsche as well.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>C'mon, be a little fair. Euthyphro doesn't prove that theism doesn't have the ability to connote good and evil, just that those two are easily mutable.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-75645936568018669652007-08-10T14:34:00.000-06:002007-08-10T14:34:00.000-06:00Ways of Knowledge - Science (Evolution, Physics, A...Ways of Knowledge - Science (Evolution, Physics, Astronomy, etc.) Religion (Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, etc.)<BR/><BR/>Knowledge of religion arrived at by: Study (of a particular book of dogma, usually to the exclusion of other such books and always excluding books from science that point to a negative result), prayer, meditation - resulting knowledge - BLIND FAITH.<BR/><BR/>Knowledge of Science arrived at by:<BR/>Study of any material including any religious text, IF PERTINENT) Hypothesis, Predictions, Experiments, Evaluation, Confirmation - TENTATIVE ACCEPTANCE. <BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to say that I have faith that this method works toward obtaining knowledge (even about "good" and "bad") then you are correct - but it's a different use of the term "faith", and it's anything but "blind" - eyes open, mind questioning and reevaluationg are prerequisite.John Evohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868904051881865159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-12909856316555119982007-08-10T14:17:00.000-06:002007-08-10T14:17:00.000-06:00David, if you're still around, why don't you give ...David, if you're still around, why don't you give this a read - <BR/> <BR/>http://www.blacksunjournal.com/science/847_atheist-metaphysics-and-religious-equivocation_2007.htmlJohn Evohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868904051881865159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-50779406120233255412007-08-10T13:09:00.000-06:002007-08-10T13:09:00.000-06:00David Kear: I will agree with you in the strong di...<B>David Kear</B>: <I>I will agree with you in the strong disapproval of [vacuity and fraud].</I><BR/><BR/>Fair enough, I was just checking.<BR/><BR/><I>[M]y worldview supports the concepts of good and evil...</I><BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't. Read <A HREF="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html" REL="nofollow">Euthyphro</A>. You might check Nietzsche as well.<BR/><BR/><I>...where yours does not...</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it does. We'll get to precisely how in a second.<BR/><BR/><I>... as you have admitted saying, “It is true that <B>specific</B> value judgments are not <B>directly supported</B> by Metaphysical Naturalism.”</I> [emphasis added]<BR/><BR/>By "not <I>directly</I> supported" I mean specific value judgments do not logically <I>derive</I> from MN. This is unsurprising, since MN specifies <I>only</I> an open epistemic system which privileges perception, logic (or specific characteristics of logic), and parsimony.<BR/><BR/>There are various ways looking at ethics under MN: They all have to do with evaluating ethical statements according to some kind of subjective experiential evidence. As noted earlier, I've written extensively about <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search/label/Meta-Ethical%20Subjective%20Relativism" REL="nofollow">meta-ethical subjective relativism</A>.<BR/><BR/>We're starting to drift far off-topic.<BR/><BR/>I've written extensively about ethics in general, as well as meta-ethical subjective relativism. You're more than welcome to read what I've written on the topic and comment on the appropriate posts. I'm not particularly interested in recapitulating 10,000 or so words in unrelated comments.<BR/><BR/>I've also written about the relationship between atheism and faith, blind faith, and whether atheism or religion has <I>more</I> blind faith. Again: You're free to read and comment on those posts as appropriate.<BR/><BR/><I>This</I> thread is about my assertion that claims that religion is in any way "reasonable" are not only false but fraudulent. You're free to argue whatever position you wish to take on my assertion, but it's a <I>tu quoque</I> fallacy to argue that atheism is just as dishonest.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-35277765137174723022007-08-10T12:10:00.000-06:002007-08-10T12:10:00.000-06:00Barefoot asked, “You yourself would appear to be d...Barefoot asked, “You yourself would appear to be defending vacuity and fraud: Is this your intention?”<BR/><BR/>Absolutely not, only if you squint and turn your head sideways would you think I am defending any such thing. I will agree with you in the strong disapproval of these things. In fact that is my point. I am in disapproval of your doing the very thing that you condemn.<BR/><BR/>The difference is that my worldview supports the concepts of good and evil where yours does not as you have admitted saying, “It is true that specific value judgments are not directly supported by Metaphysical Naturalism.”<BR/><BR/>I am only pointing out that you are engaging in the same thing, faith, when you appeal to things that cannot be supported through the presuppositions of your worldview. I am further pointing out that you are not holding yourself to the same standard that you are attempting to hold theists to when you proclaim your faith as reasonable.David Kearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17186331498574851542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-79960103082609490832007-08-10T11:35:00.000-06:002007-08-10T11:35:00.000-06:00David Kear: Not only are [atheists] religious but ...<B>David Kear</B>: <I>Not only are [atheists] religious but they operate on more blind faith than any other religion.</I><BR/><BR/>More faith? "More" is the interesting word here. Metaphysical naturalism is a metaphysical system, and if you squint and turn your head sideways you can just barely make out something like "faith", but <I>more</I> faith?<BR/><BR/>And <I>blind</I> faith? In what bizarro-world version of English can a metaphysical system which elevates perception to an epistemic foundation be called blind? "I do not think that word means what you think it means."<BR/><BR/>It is true that specific value judgments are not directly supported by Metaphysical Naturalism. I was speaking colloquially; I make my overall position clear in my series on <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search/label/Meta-Ethical%20Subjective%20Relativism" REL="nofollow">meta-ethical subjective relativism</A>: I strongly disapprove of rational vacuity and fraud, as do, I hope, most of my readers.<BR/><BR/>You yourself would appear to be <I>defending</I> vacuity and fraud: Is this your intention?<BR/><BR/>(And, just FYI, "queue" is a line, "cue" is a prompt.)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-4977968478438017402007-08-10T11:19:00.000-06:002007-08-10T11:19:00.000-06:00It has always amazed me how atheists can sit back ...It has always amazed me how atheists can sit back and not recognize themselves as religious beings. Not only are they religious but they operate on more blind faith than any other religion.<BR/><BR/>As an example the two goals that you mention both assume something that is not supported by any atheistic presupposition. The first is that rational vacuity is a “bad” thing. The second is that stopping the fraud is a “good” thing. How can an atheist rationally appeal to anything being good or bad? What empirical evidence have you observed that proves the existence of good or bad? Sounds like a monumental leap of blind faith to me. <BR/><BR/>Barefoot said, “But proclaim your religious beliefs as reasonable, and I'll be right in your face calling you a liar. You can have your blind faith, but I have my reason, and I'll fight to protect it.”<BR/><BR/>I guess this is my queue to say that you have proclaimed your blind faith as reasonable (as identified above). Will you now call yourself a liar?David Kearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17186331498574851542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-54755066118629484392007-08-09T22:02:00.000-06:002007-08-09T22:02:00.000-06:00John: Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger published...<B>John:</B> Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger published two studies you might find interesting:<BR/><BR/><I>Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers</I><BR/><I>Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, everyone should read Altemeyer's profound work, <A HREF="http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/" REL="nofollow">The Authoritarians</A>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-35987108669507679422007-08-09T21:52:00.000-06:002007-08-09T21:52:00.000-06:00Barefoot Bum said; "Be religious if you choose. P...Barefoot Bum said; "Be religious if you choose. Proclaim your religious beliefs (in, of course, a civilized and appropriate manner) to your heart's content. At worst, if you call for some actual action I consider objectionable, I will object to the action. <BR/><BR/>"But proclaim your religious beliefs as reasonable, and I'll be right in your face calling you a liar. You can have your blind faith, but I have my reason, and I'll fight to protect it."<BR/><BR/>I agree with you but, unfortunately, it takes us right back to your opening point. If their blind-faith belief is centered in "knowledge" of how the universe is then you getting in their face will not change their position. <BR/><BR/>This confirms to me the effort of being clear about what I believe and why I believe it, fully cognizant of the fact that the immediate subject of my clarity will not, in all likelihood, receive it. However, there are always third parties - reading or listening. Some of them are not true believers yet perhaps lean toward the position of the believer. Reason sometimes works here and makes the effort worthwhile. <BR/><BR/>I am interested in something though. I wonder if you studied a couple of hundred atheists, how many of them would say they came to a conclusion of breaking with a religion that people would call "fundamentalist". Don't you think (without having any prior statistical evidence) that perhaps 10% of them could be thus characterized? Certainly there must be some percentage. It would then be fun to do further studies with them to find out what made possible the thing that you and I agree isn't really possible!John Evohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868904051881865159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-32170267389555236292007-08-09T14:51:00.000-06:002007-08-09T14:51:00.000-06:00Having had experiences similar to yours, I agree w...Having had experiences similar to yours, I agree wholeheartedly about the impossibility of reasoning with the devout. The tragedy of the encroachment of religion into politics, whether in North America or the Middle East, is that it precludes reasoned debate.<BR/><BR/>The best answer, of course, is to keep the seriously religious the hell out of politics. Here in Canada, we used humour (yes, that's the way it's spelled) to embarrass a young earth creationist politician. Every time he arrived at a political meeting, people would wave purple Barney dinosaurs in the air to emphasize the fact that he believed that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. It worked like a charm - he not only lost the election, but was replaced as party leader.<BR/><BR/>Ironically, this occurred in a country with no chartered separation of church and state. Mind you, we still have our own battles (religious schools are publicly funded in some areas, and the creationist buffoon referred to above is a cabinet minister).<BR/><BR/>What gives me some hope is that the forces of secular reason appear to be fighting back. Could be a long and ugly conflict though...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-457242790521802612007-08-09T09:31:00.000-06:002007-08-09T09:31:00.000-06:00Kelly, you say that like it's a bad thing! ;-)Kelly, you say that like it's a <I>bad</I> thing! ;-)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-14580824656631764532007-08-09T09:23:00.000-06:002007-08-09T09:23:00.000-06:00But if theists cannot support their faith on reaso...But if theists cannot support their faith on reason, how will they ever politicize faith-based beliefs and their personal morality!?Kellygorskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07757767910101757133noreply@blogger.com