An email correspondent directs my attention to Charles Hugh Smith's hypothesis that Obama has a secret plan to discredit the big bankers. As much as I'd like to credit Obama with even populist motives, I don't find the hypothesis plausible.
It's pretty clear that Obama is a tool of the bourgeois capitalists. Why shouldn't he be? The ruling class does in fact actually rule. That's what they do. I also don't see why Volcker should be much of a bellwether; it's not like he's sitting in the treasury basement studying Marx, Lenin and Mao. He's just as much a capitalist as Obama.
I'm more confident that Obama represents one faction within the bourgeoisie and that there are serious internal contradictions within the bourgeoisie driving the social dialectic right now. And it's almost certainly true that Obama is not talking about everything he knows or everything he plans.
But there's no evidence at all to falsify the simplest hypothesis that Obama is being mostly sincere and direct, that he is in fact sincerely trying to save the capitalist system he's grown up with, believes is best, and that he has clearly been beholden to for his entire political career.
I think its more plausible that Obama is trying to buy time to enact a liberal reformist agenda, and that he does not believe he has enough political power to risk an open confrontation. As a communist, I have little confidence in liberal reformism, but even within that paradigm, I think Obama fails to realize that you gain political power by fighting and winning open confrontations; avoiding them just makes you look weak.
Even if Obama were to (probably correctly) believe he didn't have enough power to overhaul the capitalist institutions to make them "FDR liberal", his best strategy would have been to find or create some confrontation he was sure to win. The most obvious battle would have been prosecutions over torture. A win there was almost guaranteed and would pose minimal political risk: just let the Justice Department do its job. Maneuver a few good Republican judges — such as Judge Jones of Dover v. Kitzmiller — into heading most of the trials and Bob's your uncle.
That Obama hasn't done that, that he's released the torture memos without initiating prosecutions, is equivocal and weak. Obama is a smart guy, and one cannot plausibly believe a Chicago politician lacks the will or ability to fight; the only conclusion is that Obama rationally believes that prosecuting torture would not serve his interests.
The problem with the "Secret Plan" hypothesis is the same with any conspiracy theory: secret plans are usually too dangerous to seriously contemplate when it's your own ass on the line. If Obama were to give the bankers enough rope to hang themselves, it's far too easy to get a loop caught around his own ankle and go down with them.
It's also entirely unclear that the bankers would actually hang themselves no matter how much rope you gave them. Never in human history — even before the advent of scientific propaganda — has any ruling class lost its grip just because of some short-term non-catastrophic crisis; class rules changes only when society has verged near catastrophic anarchy, and never even then without a bloody revolution. I don't think Obama intentionally wishes to steer society to the brink of catastrophe.
At one level, I more or less wish him the best.A revolution is sure to be a bloody mess; I don't advocate revolution because I want one, and I'd rather be mistaken about the inevitability of capitalism's failure. But I don't think I'm mistaken, and I don't think Obama, despite being a smart, sincere, moderately nice guy, will be able to fix capitalism.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Divine Command Theory
The argument against Divine Command Theory — if God commands X, then X is good by definition — is very simple.
There are only two cases: Either God commands only what conforms to our independent judgment, or God commands some activities contrary to our independent judgment.
The former case is vacuous. Divine Command Theory adds nothing to our independent judgment: we can rely directly on our independent judgment without talking about God. At best, Divine Command Theory becomes merely a terrible ontological theory to pretend to explain why we independently make certain judgments. It is no longer an epistemic theory: we don't know, learn or discover how we should exercise our judgment — distinct from how we do in fact make judgments — by examining God's commands.
The latter case is problematic. If we believe that God makes some commands contrary to our independent judgment, how are we to respond to those commands? More importantly, how are we to distinguish authentic commands from fake commands? How are we to distinguish between commands that are dependent on some particular context and commands that are independent of context? By definition, since we are accepting a priori that God's commands can differ from our own independent judgment, we cannot use our independent judgment to distinguish authentic commands from fake commands. Similarly, we cannot use our independent judgment to distinguish what elements of context are relevant to a particular command.
Any exegesis of any scripture other than absolute literalism requires the exercise of our independent judgment. But if we can reliably use our independent judgment to interpret commands, why not rely fully on our independent judgment? On the other hand, if our independent judgment is not sufficiently reliable to rely on fully, by what virtue do we rely on it to distinguish authentic commands from fake commands? By what virtue do we rely on our a priori unreliable independent judgment to pick out those elements of context relevant to the command?
The only way to avoid hypocrisy is to grasp the nettle: fix on some scripture, and take every moral commandment literally, completely independent of context unless that element of context is explicitly, unequivocally stated in the scripture itself. Any attempt to do otherwise is hypocritical bullshit sophistry.
There are only two cases: Either God commands only what conforms to our independent judgment, or God commands some activities contrary to our independent judgment.
The former case is vacuous. Divine Command Theory adds nothing to our independent judgment: we can rely directly on our independent judgment without talking about God. At best, Divine Command Theory becomes merely a terrible ontological theory to pretend to explain why we independently make certain judgments. It is no longer an epistemic theory: we don't know, learn or discover how we should exercise our judgment — distinct from how we do in fact make judgments — by examining God's commands.
The latter case is problematic. If we believe that God makes some commands contrary to our independent judgment, how are we to respond to those commands? More importantly, how are we to distinguish authentic commands from fake commands? How are we to distinguish between commands that are dependent on some particular context and commands that are independent of context? By definition, since we are accepting a priori that God's commands can differ from our own independent judgment, we cannot use our independent judgment to distinguish authentic commands from fake commands. Similarly, we cannot use our independent judgment to distinguish what elements of context are relevant to a particular command.
Any exegesis of any scripture other than absolute literalism requires the exercise of our independent judgment. But if we can reliably use our independent judgment to interpret commands, why not rely fully on our independent judgment? On the other hand, if our independent judgment is not sufficiently reliable to rely on fully, by what virtue do we rely on it to distinguish authentic commands from fake commands? By what virtue do we rely on our a priori unreliable independent judgment to pick out those elements of context relevant to the command?
The only way to avoid hypocrisy is to grasp the nettle: fix on some scripture, and take every moral commandment literally, completely independent of context unless that element of context is explicitly, unequivocally stated in the scripture itself. Any attempt to do otherwise is hypocritical bullshit sophistry.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Truckling to the Faithful
Jerry Coyne blasts the accommodationists: Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down:
Also read PZ Myers, Larry Moran and Richard Dawkins on this important position.
The only way that religion can be compatible with science is to suck all the meaning out of "religion": To hold the position that God is a vague deity, with vague properties and no effect whatsoever on the world, neither physical nor moral; to hold an Einsteinian "God" as a metaphor for the nonteleological physical laws that govern our world. The vast majority of self-described religious people do not hold such a vacuous view of God: they see God has having some influence on the world, many see God as having a profound and continuing influence. I cannot imagine how those few self-described religious people who do talk about a "God Who Makes No Difference" (Greg Egan's phrase) and really mean it can muster up the energy to regularly meet.
[T]he accommodationist position of the National Academy of Sciences, and especially that of the National Center for Science Education, is a self-defeating tactic, compromising the very science they aspire to defend. By seeking union with religious people, and emphasizing that there is no genuine conflict between faith and science, they are making accommodationism not just a tactical position, but a philosophical one. By ignoring the significant dissent in the scientific community about whether religion and science can be reconciled, they imply a unanimity that does not exist. Finally, by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory. ...
The NAS is saying that most religious people and scientists have no problem with evolution and faith. Given that 40% of Americans reject evolution outright (almost entirely on religious grounds), while 92% of NAS scientists reject the idea a personal god, the National Academy is clearly pushing its agenda in defiance of evidence. ...
In his accommodationist books God After Darwin and the more recent Deeper than Darwin, [NCSE website contributor John Haught] espouses a teleology in which evolution is ineluctably drawn by God to some future point of perfection. ... But any injection of teleology into evolutionary biology violates precisely the great advance of Darwin’s theory: to explain the appearance of design by a purely materialistic process — no deity required. ... If we’re to defend evolutionary biology, we must defend it as a science: a nonteleological theory in which the panoply of life results from the action of natural selection and genetic drift acting on random mutations. ...
If natural selection and evolution are as powerful as we all believe, then we should devote our time to making sure that they are more widely and accurately understood, and that their teaching is defended. Those should be the sole missions of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education. Leave theology to the theologians.
Also read PZ Myers, Larry Moran and Richard Dawkins on this important position.
The only way that religion can be compatible with science is to suck all the meaning out of "religion": To hold the position that God is a vague deity, with vague properties and no effect whatsoever on the world, neither physical nor moral; to hold an Einsteinian "God" as a metaphor for the nonteleological physical laws that govern our world. The vast majority of self-described religious people do not hold such a vacuous view of God: they see God has having some influence on the world, many see God as having a profound and continuing influence. I cannot imagine how those few self-described religious people who do talk about a "God Who Makes No Difference" (Greg Egan's phrase) and really mean it can muster up the energy to regularly meet.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
A Christian's perspective on evidence
Tom of Thinking Christian discusses What Is “Evidence” To Christians? in response to my curiosity. Of course, I have my own opinions on the subject.
Holopupenko raises some general objections, to which I respond.
Holopupenko raises some general objections, to which I respond.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Ten retarded questions
Retard Scott Pruett posts 10 [Retarded] Questions for the Atheist. I don't know who the atheist is, but I'll the trouble to mocking Pruett's childish understanding of both science and philosophy.
First of all, all ten questions essentially say: this science, math and philosophy stuff is complicated! We don't know everything! Therefore goddidit! Fucking moronic.
As faithlessgod notes, Pruett conflates atheism, naturalism and materialism. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ who has studied philosophy on the internet for six weeks knows these are entirely different philosophical positions. (Atheism is, however, an consequence of methodological naturalism and the evidence of our senses.)
Each of Pruett's stupid questions not only proclaims his trivial, sophomoric god-of-the-gaps nonsense, but also his ignorance of science and philosophy.
First, scientists are not in widespread agreement that the "entire cosmos" (which is itself not a scientific term) came into existence (again not a scientific term) at a finite point in the past. Pruett needs to read actual science books, not tendentious apologetic interpretations of science. If Pruett wishes to represent the opinions of scientists, he would do well to find out what their actual opinions are instead of putting words in their mouths.
Second, the philosophical question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Big Bang cosmology; the question would be equally applicable in an eternal, steady-state universe. Furthermore, if the "entire cosmos" means everything that exists, it's nonsense to ask where it came from.
Of course, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is itself a stupid question. Something (the entire cosmos, the relativistic quantum field, the multiverse, or God) just is. Don't like that answer? Too bad.
The problem of abiogenesis... is one of the thorniest and most intractable issues in chemistry.
JFGI. The problem of solving the quantum field equation of a deuterium atom is much more difficult than abiogenesis. There are any number of plausible hypotheses.
Our increasing knowledge of microbiology and earth history has only added to the complexity of what needs to be explained.
Quite the contrary. See above.
The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a "prebiotic soup"...
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce! In addition to his deficiencies with Wikipedia and Google (not to mention Talk.Origins), Pruett appears unable to correctly employ a dictionary.
... or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared.
None of these issues are presently considered important to actual scientists.
Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because (1) it is a challenge they'd rather not be saddled with, or (2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention.
Pruett flat-out lies here. Scientists segregate abiogenesis from evolution because they are entirely different fields of study with different evidentiary bases and that require different specialized knowledge.
In telling the tale of life on earth science writers often unconsciously use the word "miracle" for the appearance of the first organisms.
Not only does Pruett simply use the bullshit "some people say", he elevates it to the argument from phantom experts. Even if he weren't just making facts up here (which ordinary people call "lying") the linguistic solecisms of science writers do not seem a compelling challenge to atheism, naturalism or materialism: maybe they're just as stupid and mendacious as Pruett.
Ah... that's enough. The rest is a rehash of all the moronic, retarded arguments for the existence of God that any self-respecting atheist intellectual chewed up in her first six months on IIDB.
Here's a few howlers from the rest.
Skeptics often bring up the "problem of evil" as evidence against God... Do you think that this is a valid objection?
Yes.
Yet our deepest longing is for our lives to count for something.
Something more than abject subservience to a priesthood claiming to speak for a psychopathic deity.
Every known time and culture is rich with stories of near death experiences, ghosts, angels, demons, prophetic dreams and visions, and miraculous healings.
Yet only the Christian stories are real. Everyone knows that all the rest are just delusions and fantasies.
The case for the Jesus of Scripture is extremely compelling.
Snicker.
The trend of archaeology is toward validation, not denial, of what it is possible to confirm in Scripture.
Pruett apparently hasn't read The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology tends towards dismissal of the Bible, especially the Old Testament.
Christians are often accused of being simple-minded, superstitious, or irrational.
You don't say.
Is it so unreasonable for us to believe that the universe had a beginning because it actually was created; the laws of physics are so fine-tuned because it had a designer; people are preoccupied with good and evil because they are real things; we long for purpose and meaning because they exist to be had; life from non-life really is miraculous; consciousness and freewill seem real because they are; people are incurably religious because there is actually something real in religion; and the historical case for Jesus is so tenacious because it is actually true?
Yes, yes it is unreasonable.
If there really is no meaning or purpose to life, no objective good or evil, and the existence of "truth" itself is open to debate, by what standard will you condemn the beliefs of Christians?
Because you all are retards and liars.
First of all, all ten questions essentially say: this science, math and philosophy stuff is complicated! We don't know everything! Therefore goddidit! Fucking moronic.
As faithlessgod notes, Pruett conflates atheism, naturalism and materialism. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ who has studied philosophy on the internet for six weeks knows these are entirely different philosophical positions. (Atheism is, however, an consequence of methodological naturalism and the evidence of our senses.)
Each of Pruett's stupid questions not only proclaims his trivial, sophomoric god-of-the-gaps nonsense, but also his ignorance of science and philosophy.
1. CreationPruett gives us two stupidisms for the price of one (aside from the trivial stupidism that "science" doesn't have an opinion (only scientists have opinions) and that "consensus" is a superlative; an overwhelming consensus is nonsense).
The overwhelming consensus of science is that the entire cosmos (including space and time) came into existence at a finite point in the past. All of our observations, equations, and physical laws testify to a point of origin for this universe.
In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "Where did it all come from?"
First, scientists are not in widespread agreement that the "entire cosmos" (which is itself not a scientific term) came into existence (again not a scientific term) at a finite point in the past. Pruett needs to read actual science books, not tendentious apologetic interpretations of science. If Pruett wishes to represent the opinions of scientists, he would do well to find out what their actual opinions are instead of putting words in their mouths.
Second, the philosophical question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Big Bang cosmology; the question would be equally applicable in an eternal, steady-state universe. Furthermore, if the "entire cosmos" means everything that exists, it's nonsense to ask where it came from.
Of course, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is itself a stupid question. Something (the entire cosmos, the relativistic quantum field, the multiverse, or God) just is. Don't like that answer? Too bad.
2 OrderPruett — surprise, surprise — does not understand the Anthropic Principle; Nor, apparently, does he understand how to use Wikipedia or Google. The Fine Tuning argument has been thoroughly debunked.
The past several decades have added profoundly to our knowledge of chemistry, physics, and cosmology. It has become increasingly clear that we live in a universe finely tuned for the support of complex life. This fact is so universally acknowledged that even secular scientists have coined the term "Anthropic Principle" to describe it.
How is it that we live in such an exquisitely fine-tuned universe? Even assuming that the universe could have popped out of nothingness, why should it have been such an orderly and hospitable one? Is there a scientific, testable answer for this question that does not simply appeal to imagination?
3. AbiogenesisWow... let's catalog the stupidisms one by one.
The problem of abiogenesis (the origin of the first lifeform) is one of the thorniest and most intractable issues in chemistry. Our increasing knowledge of microbiology and earth history has only added to the complexity of what needs to be explained. The simplest life is equivalent to modern bacteria, which is loaded with complex activity, information, and molecular "machines." The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a "prebiotic soup," or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared. Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because (1) it is a challenge they'd rather not be saddled with, or (2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention. However, for the atheist there is no escaping this issue; they are obliged to seek out some purely natural explanation.
What hope for an explanation do you have? Are you satisfied to have problems like this that are unanswered, or even unanswerable?
In telling the tale of life on earth science writers often unconsciously use the word "miracle" for the appearance of the first organisms.
What kind of evidence is needed before we are to actually accept that something like this really is a miracle?
The problem of abiogenesis... is one of the thorniest and most intractable issues in chemistry.
JFGI. The problem of solving the quantum field equation of a deuterium atom is much more difficult than abiogenesis. There are any number of plausible hypotheses.
Our increasing knowledge of microbiology and earth history has only added to the complexity of what needs to be explained.
Quite the contrary. See above.
The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a "prebiotic soup"...
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce! In addition to his deficiencies with Wikipedia and Google (not to mention Talk.Origins), Pruett appears unable to correctly employ a dictionary.
... or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared.
None of these issues are presently considered important to actual scientists.
Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because (1) it is a challenge they'd rather not be saddled with, or (2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention.
Pruett flat-out lies here. Scientists segregate abiogenesis from evolution because they are entirely different fields of study with different evidentiary bases and that require different specialized knowledge.
In telling the tale of life on earth science writers often unconsciously use the word "miracle" for the appearance of the first organisms.
Not only does Pruett simply use the bullshit "some people say", he elevates it to the argument from phantom experts. Even if he weren't just making facts up here (which ordinary people call "lying") the linguistic solecisms of science writers do not seem a compelling challenge to atheism, naturalism or materialism: maybe they're just as stupid and mendacious as Pruett.
Ah... that's enough. The rest is a rehash of all the moronic, retarded arguments for the existence of God that any self-respecting atheist intellectual chewed up in her first six months on IIDB.
Here's a few howlers from the rest.
Skeptics often bring up the "problem of evil" as evidence against God... Do you think that this is a valid objection?
Yes.
Yet our deepest longing is for our lives to count for something.
Something more than abject subservience to a priesthood claiming to speak for a psychopathic deity.
Every known time and culture is rich with stories of near death experiences, ghosts, angels, demons, prophetic dreams and visions, and miraculous healings.
Yet only the Christian stories are real. Everyone knows that all the rest are just delusions and fantasies.
The case for the Jesus of Scripture is extremely compelling.
Snicker.
The trend of archaeology is toward validation, not denial, of what it is possible to confirm in Scripture.
Pruett apparently hasn't read The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology tends towards dismissal of the Bible, especially the Old Testament.
Christians are often accused of being simple-minded, superstitious, or irrational.
You don't say.
Is it so unreasonable for us to believe that the universe had a beginning because it actually was created; the laws of physics are so fine-tuned because it had a designer; people are preoccupied with good and evil because they are real things; we long for purpose and meaning because they exist to be had; life from non-life really is miraculous; consciousness and freewill seem real because they are; people are incurably religious because there is actually something real in religion; and the historical case for Jesus is so tenacious because it is actually true?
Yes, yes it is unreasonable.
If there really is no meaning or purpose to life, no objective good or evil, and the existence of "truth" itself is open to debate, by what standard will you condemn the beliefs of Christians?
Because you all are retards and liars.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
This is not your father's Star Trek
According to Kris Straub:
Star Trek XI - Coming May 8Every time I think the franchise cannot possibly sink any lower, I am proven wrong.
Meet Captain J. Kirkz, the most extreme officer in Score Fleet. When space be trippin', here's one ice-cold motherf---er that don't lose his s---. Check out Kirkz, Spok, and Dr. Leo "B0n3z" McCracken as they cruise Jupiter and Mars for some bangin' action. Brought to you by Surge and Boost Mobile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)