It’s been raining heavily for three days straight thanks to El Nino. Carol is going stir crazy; pacing the hallway, constantly looking out the window toward the house across the street. No activity in that direction. No activity anywhere, really. It’s almost dark as night in the middle of the day, and her one attempt to run to the store was stymied by a flooded intersection, and a VERY cranky police officer in standing water up to his hips waving her back.
On day 2 of the deluge, Bob hauled down a jigsaw puzzle from the closet shelf, and is quietly assembling it on a card table in the corner of the living room. On the cover of the box is a beautiful artistic rendering of the Pyramid of Giza, set in the days of its original construction. Low in the sky, and directly above the pyramid, a cigar shaped flying saucer is hovering, playing down an azure-hued searchlight on what appears to be the final stages of its completion.
From time to time during the day, Carol sits down and tries her hand at the puzzle. Bob is working at sorting out the sky pieces. Carol shakes her head. For some reason, he always starts with the sky, often without even finishing the frame first. With a sign, Carol starts fishing the straight-edged pieces out of the box bottom. They work together quietly, as some Brahms emerges from the stereo and wafts softly across the room accompanied by the sound of incessant, heavy rainfall coming from outside.
At some point, Bob mutters:
BOB: Aren’t the pyramids amazing?
CAROL: What do you mean?
BOB: Well, they’re so huge, and awe inspiring. And you’ve got to wonder, why were they built?
CAROL: Weren’t they meant to be tombs for Pharaohs, or something like that?
BOB: Oh, c’mon! All that work, all those years for a glorified gravestone? No sane ruler would squander his nation’s resources for decades, for something so trivial. No, there was definitely something else going on.
CAROL: Like what?
BOB: Well...
At this point, Bob says nothing more, but taps his finger on the UFO on the box cover.
CAROL: *rolls her eyes* Oh, pulease!
BOB: What? You don’t think there are other forms of life out there? The universe is a big place, sweetie. Don’t be so close-minded.
CAROL: Whether or not there’s other life ‘out there’ is really beside the point, honey. The question is, did they come here, and did they build the pyramids? Where’s your evidence?
BOB: The evidence is staring you in the face, Carol. Do you have a better explanation for how primitive people without access to modern equipment or construction principles somehow managed to create one of the seven wonders of the ancient world?
CAROL: Well, to begin with, the fact that there are six other such ‘wonders’ might clue you in to the fact that building such marvels was at least feasible, even in the ancient world.
BOB: Look, just because people may have constructed the other six- and I emphasize the word ‘may’- doesn’t say anything about whether or not the pyramids were or were not created by aliens. I think you just committed some sort of logical fallacy there, hon.
CAROL: What, the fallacy of pointing out that people were capable of constructing some marvelous edifices in the past, WITHOUT the help of ETs?
BOB: First of all, you can’t prove ETs DIDN’T lend a hand in those other projects. Secondly, we’re talking the pyramids here. Quit getting off track, Carol.
CAROL: *mutters something indecipherable under her breath* Ok, then. Let’s stick to the pyramids. Don’t you remember that special on TV a few years back about them? How they actually discovered the ruins of work camps that housed the crews who built the Giza Pyramid? There were bakeries, and family archives of workers, tools, and all other kinds of evidence that pointed to the fact that people built the thing, and NOT aliens.
BOB: All of that stuff is inconclusive, Carol. You’re taking it on faith that your ‘evidence’ points in a direction you’ve already assumed to be true. Anyway, I’m not saying that humans didn’t play a substantial role. I’m just saying that certain aspects of the construction, particularly the quarrying, not to mention the matter of transporting the building material to the site, required means beyond the ancient Egyptians’ capabilities.
CAROL: But then, there was that NOVA special where a handful of guys replicated what they think were the original building techniques, and actually built a small version themselves.
BOB: Yes, I DO remember that special. Perhaps you also recall that they had iron winches, and used trucks to transport the rocks instead of the supposed barges the Egyptians used. And anyway, comparing their miniscule finished project to the pyramids is like saying a kid who builds a balsa wood glider could just as easily build a space shuttle, with just a little help from some of his neighborhood friends.
CAROL: *rolls eyes* Oh, c’mon now, Bob! That’s a terrible analogy! A shuttle is exponentially more complicated than a toy airplane. A more apt analogy would be a few kids building a stone fort in an afternoon, to 20,000 men with some expertise in construction building a giant, somewhat more sophisticated stone fort over the course of decades. Excuse me while I clear the table of these apples and oranges, for crissake!
BOB: But then there’s the advanced mathematics involved in the construction. I don’t really know all the details, but from what I’ve read there’s some really complex mathematical formulas built into the construction, having to do with pi and some other stuff. Stuff the ancient Egyptians shouldn’t have know about. Not to mention some interesting relationships between the pyramids and certain astronomical formations. There’s a mountain of evidence that the pyramids represent some kind of star map, and might even have been used to tap unknown powers from the earth itself.
CAROL: Well, I don’t really know much about that. However, I tend to believe that there’s another side to the story of your ‘higher mathematics theory’. And as far as your ‘star map’ theory goes, I’m very skeptical *rolls eyes*.
BOB: Doesn’t surprise me *rolls eyes*.
CAROL: Anyway, everything I know about the pyramids leads me to believe that they’re wholly manmade. There’s never been one piece of ‘spaceman’ technology recovered, as far as I’ve ever heard.
BOB: That you’ve ever heard.
CAROL: Are you saying somebody has found something?
BOB: Well, let’s just say there are rumors that a lot of our modern technology has been back-engineered from stuff they’ve found in the pyramids, as well as in other places. But that’s another subject.
CAROL: Bob! How can you believe that. The advancement of technology follows an easily traceable path of one advancement built upon another, and so on back to the invention of the wheel. I’m not saying inventive intuition hasn’t also played a part, but nothing like what you’re describing.
BOB: Oh, really? And have you personally traced that whole path yourself, Carol? Hmmm?
CAROL: Oh Jesus, Bob! You know I haven’t. Nobody has.
BOB: I rest my case.
CAROL: Fine. I have a headache, anyway. I’m taking a nap.
However, instead of taking a nap, Carol got on the internet in their bedroom, and did some reading:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
and finally
Here
COMMENTARY:
Many, if not most of the judgments we make are based on less than the totality of information on any given subject. Experience teaches us that the world works a certain way, and we try to fit any newly received information into that experiential model. Sometimes this leads to hasty induction, as we attempt to wedge possible anomalous data into our existent rational framework. However, that framework is there for a reason, and shouldn’t be overridden on a whim, or because we allow our wish thinking to render our skeptical firewalls inoperative. Considering any question, it’s best to expose one’s self to as many conduits of information as one can. Doing this expands one’s body of experiential knowledge to embrace new possibilities without succumbing to superstition, which preys on glitches in the rational framework, ofttimes via emotional responses to information. Good reasoning is sometimes messy, ofttimes counter-intuitive, fraught with wrong turnings, but purposefully pursued delivers the reasoner to the gates of enlightenment more often than not.
QUESTIONS:
Was Carol justified in her skepticism demonstrated during her conversation with Bob? How justified?
How justified should Carol feel in her initial skepticism AFTER doing her reading? More, less, or the same?
How sound is Bob’s logic? Is his own skepticism sufficient, or insufficient?
I'd say she was certainly justified in her skepticism, even more so once she read those sites.
ReplyDeleteBob's logic sounds like this guy's:
http://davebunnell.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/the-atheists-lie/
"You can't disprove it, so it must be true!"
S.I.:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. I almost responded, and then thought "what's the use?" The guy obviously doesn't believe in the scientific method, and I have no interest in opening THIS can of worms-
"...the evidence of the reality of God is both infinite and omnipresent."
I'm trying to choose my battles these days, and I can't imagine that any line of dialogue with this fellow would yield any fruit. Frankly, I'm burnt out on confronting this 'everything is faith' ploy that all the apologists seem to be leading with nowadays. All this epistemological mumbo-jumbo is just a way of getting around the simple kind of everyday reasoning we should be using when confronting this stuff. A justification for seeing the world through the eyes of cognitive dissonance.
Yea, my first reaction was to respond, and I almost did, but then I realized that's all he really wanted. Some atheist to come along and give him more fodder for the next post. He's all rolled up in his little theist cocoon, and there's no way you're going to get him to come out.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I didn't mean to distract you from the question at hand...
Awaiting further input.
Well, I got totally sidetracked by Jim Loy. I wonder if he's still hanging out in Montana? I couldn't find anything more current than 2001 when he reported that his grandmother died 16 days before her 108th birthday...
ReplyDeleteAny fool can figure that the value of pi is a little greater than 3, if he/she wants to experiment a little.
and
Some people also seem to be amazed that pyramids are found in other parts of the world. On the other hand, they are probably not amazed that rectangular buildings have always been popular. A pyramid is a relatively simple shape.
and
But, Egypt as a major world power lasted for about 3000 years. Only China can compare with that. Other kingdoms lasted mere hundreds of years. What was the secret? There were probably many reasons why Egypt lasted so long. Reading Machiavelli gives us some clues. One of his pieces of advice is that a prince (ruler) must do great deeds and build great monuments. Why? To solidify his rule. It is not egotism; it is power. The people expect and even demand that a king act like a king. And the stability that resulted from building pyramids and other monuments benefitted almost 7everyone in Egypt, for thousands of years.
One of the TV documentaries on the pyramids mentioned a similar idea; building the pyramids kept the populace busy during the winter season so they didn't get bored and get silly ideas like revolting against their rulers. (We have TV and sports and internet porn for that...)
I'm definitely bookmarking his web site.
Uh, what was the question again?
Don't be too fast with the judgment card, I can always use Romans 1:21-22, and then where would we be?
ReplyDelete"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [Him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
I hope it's become apparent by now that this series isn't so much about winning an argument (which never really seems to happen, anyway), as it is about exploring the gaming space within which each of us make judgments on a daily basis. Not the conclusions, but about the way we think, both rightly and erroneously. Slowly, but hopefully surely, I want to demonstrate through the narrative that all our worldviews touch at a number of points, which is the basis for our COMMON-sense. If there's a basic question behind all this I suppose it's this one: Why do we sometimes deviate, in an extreme sense, from the world-models that inform our daily lives? What are the motivations? Are there rational justifications to be had here, or is it something else?
ReplyDeleteOf course, I'll also offer my own determinations from time to time, and everybody else is invited to do the same.
nedbrek:
Could you expand on what your point is here?
Wow! Rapid fire comments! I was responding to metamorphhh's, "A justification for seeing the world through the eyes of cognitive dissonance."
ReplyDeleteWe are all justified in our own eyes (Proverbs 21:2).
Back to the topic, what do you (all) think about the Fermi paradox?
ReplyDeleteIt is something I have investigated a fair amount. It seems quite a problem for the old earth/no purpose standpoint. While the young earth/Divine purpose view has no problem here (regardless of how things turn out).
nedbrek: RE: the Fermi paradox
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think I found enough info on the net to downgrade it to the 'Fermi question', for which there are lots of possible explanations. Rather than going into all of them here (everybody can google 'Fermi paradox' and read themselves), I'll just offer a list of possible answers that I've considered over the years, when thinking about this question-
1. Distance- we're like individual fleas scattered across a cosmos too big for the imagining, wondering if others like us exist.
2. Time- we haven't actually been looking for very long.
3. Means- Maybe our tech isn't up to the task.
4. Recognition- Maybe our form of life is relatively rare, and there are other types we wouldn't recognize as being life.
5. Annihilation- Maybe there's a propensity for lifeforms reaching a certain apex of development to explode themselves.
6. Probability- Maybe there's still a lot we don't understand about the origination of life that makes it rarer than we think it is.
7. Singularity- Maybe at some point in their development, advanced civilizations learn to split the scene, becoming one with the m-verse, or some such groove shtick.
8. Maybe there's some sort of StarTrekish Prime Directive thing going on, and we're being isolated until we reach a certain level of development.
9. Maybe the last generation of civilizations has died off, and we're at the leading edge of the next one.
10- Maybe nobody likes us.
Honestly, I think 'paradox' is a misnomer here. Seems more like a 'why can't I find a parking space when I need one?' paradox to me. Fermi wasn't very imaginative, methinks.
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete'We are all justified in our own eyes...'
True dat, but doesn't really say very much. It's when we get to comparing our justifications, and talking about which ones better reflect the world we live in, that progress in dialogue occurs. Weeding out the cognitive dissonance, so to speak :)
I think most presentations on the Fermi Paradox (FP, or FQ :) concentrate too much on SETI.
ReplyDeleteThere is a bigger question, that relates to "hope" (which is a whole other topic, which I hope we can cover at some point :)
If you look at where our technology is going, there is no real barrier to building self-replicating colonies (there are wide ranges of scales possible, depending on how things work out).
Even traveling significantly slower than light speed, and even spending a long period of time at each system to replicate, it would only take a few tens of millions of years to get around (basically 3e5 * speed for traveling, and maybe 100 years per system for replication - maybe 30 or 40 million years, a drop in the bucket).
Then the questions regarding us looking are knocked out. We would not need to look hard, the remnants of their replicators would be quite visible. All the usable material would have been converted into probes and blasted into the next system. Whatever habitats they required would remain.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteWell, my own 'hope' is that, at a certain point antinatalist reasoning kicks in, vicarious immortality is seen for what it is, and civilizations finally come to realize that endless replication of the species leaves an endless trail of suffering and death in its wake. But that's another subject.
Can't get the friggin' link to work, dammit!
ReplyDeletesee antinatalism.blogspot.com
Are you proposing the near-term extinction of the species? (all materialists believe in ultimate extinction, when the material universe runs out of free energy - most believe it is most "noble" to fight it tooth and nail)
ReplyDeleteOr some sort of stable population cap?
when the material universe runs out of free energy
ReplyDeleteActually, no; per the latest cosmological models of physicists the universe is flat and accelerating. So, assuming humans find a way to move from the solar system (whatever "humans" means after millions of years of continued evolution), we'll still be around to see our galaxy, but eventually the other galaxies will go out of the observable range, so it will seem as though only our own galaxy is in the universe.
Sure, "flat and accelerating" doesn't overturn entropy. Eventually, there is just no usable energy. Stars go dark, black holes evaporate. Even matter itself will likely break down.
ReplyDeleteNot everything will lose energy at the same time is the point. The Cosmos is still expanding. There's also the fact that, regardless of what sort of death happens, there will still be "life" in this Cosmos (be it stars, planets, black holes, etc.). Matter, as we know it, will always exist in some form or another.
ReplyDelete"While the young earth/Divine purpose view has no problem here"
Young earth has too many other problems to deal with even if it does happen to deal with the Fermi Paradox (though, I don't see it answering it either accurately or satisfactorily).
I don't see a problem with Old Earth. Obviously. The evidence is all there. Unless you want to discount every fossil ever found. And I also see no problem with "no purpose" standpoint. It's only a problem if you try to attach some grand purpose to it. Otherwise, it's just what we know. The problem with Divine purpose is obvious, though: you can never figure it out. ;)
The second law of thermodynamics applies in an open system. The universe is a closed system.
ReplyDeleteblack holes evaporate...
That's too funny!
It's hard to engage in a serious thought experiment about the universe with someone who seems to be fairly clueless about physics.
Oh, I missed the young earth comment...
Ildi:
ReplyDeleteFrom what I recall of my reading when I was more interested in this stuff, black holes do evaporate via Hawking radiation. Eventually all matter breaks down to whatever its fundamental constituents happen to be, and we arrive a true heat death. Everything eventually comes apart. Depending on what the nature of gravity eventually turns out to be, one day you'll have sub-atomic particles orbiting each other at the distance of what the observable universe is now, and possibly beyond; IF gravity holds up, that is. Or you might have the fabric of space/time itself ripping into tatters somewhere in the interim between now and ultimate heat death. Some of this is still up in the air.
It's true, my bad; these are both options since we don't have enough data. I just recently watched Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing," and I may have gotten some of his points wrong, but he seemed to imply that a flat, accelerating universe had no end.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could find a script, because I don't do my best studying through listening. (I'm a visual learner...)
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete"Are you proposing the near-term extinction of the species? (all materialists believe in ultimate extinction, when the material universe runs out of free energy - most believe it is most "noble" to fight it tooth and nail)"
Yes. And I think the nobility you speak of is misplaced for a number of reasons. I go into that quite a bit over at the other blog.
I looked up black hole evaporation and found this on a Black Hole FAQ from Berkeley:
ReplyDeleteActually, nobody is really sure what happens at the last stages of black hole evaporation: some researchers think that a tiny, stable remnant is left behind. Our current theories simply aren't good enough to let us tell for sure one way or the other. As long as I'm disclaiming, let me add that the entire subject of black hole evaporation is extremely speculative. It involves figuring out how to perform quantum-mechanical (or rather quantum-field-theoretic) calculations in curved spacetime, which is a very difficult task, and which gives results that are essentially impossible to test with experiments. Physicists *think* that we have the correct theories to make predictions about black hole evaporation, but without experimental tests it's impossible to be sure.
I claim a spot on one of those last tiny stable remnants!
Ildi:
ReplyDeleteI consider it to be a rule of thumb that everybody's talking out their ass where theoretical physics is concerned...even the experts. That's why it's sort of silly to base theological arguments on this or that theory. Whenever somebody offers some 'proof' based on this stuff, I'll offer a number of alternatives when I'm able, but I don't take anybody's opinion in this area super-seriously. It's fun for an occasional mind fuck, though :)
metamorphh: I admire your rigor. Your unflinching acceptance of the implications of your theology (albeit, a sort of null-theology).
ReplyDeleteOf course, I am (by nature) a contrarian. Would you advocate sterilizing the earth, to prevent the evolution of new intelligent life forms? What about other worlds?
Perhaps we should build self-replicating probes, for the sole purpose of exterminating all life everywhere. They would need a sort of intelligence to perform this task, so they could self-destruct once their task is done. :P
I'll admit it; I'm not a big fan of the Christian apologetics version of the Socratic method; I'm trying to get nedbrek to get to the point which (I think) is; when the materialists are nobly clutching at the last remnants of their cold, dead universe, Christians will still be dancing the happy dance in eternal heaven! Yay!
ReplyDeleteildi:
ReplyDeleteI apologize for all the rhetorical questions. It is a bad habit of mine...
The point comes back to hope (which is hugely off topic, but I will start small, and see where it goes).
The current trend of "hope in hope" is silly. I think metamorphhh would agree. He is proposing the elimination of hope, which is logical, given his assumptions (there is no God).
The Biblical notion of hope is entirely different. It is "the expectation of things promised". It is not an empty wish, daydreaming, etc.
I have hope because God has made a promise. And God keeps His promises, because He is not a liar. Circular reasoning, based on a solid foundation - God is.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteHere's a blurb from my book that's coming out soon that speaks to your larger question of 'hope'...
Hope is my enemy. She is a succubus who descends upon sleeping humankind, whispering in their collective ear that there IS a future. A bright future, as a matter of fact; as long as we persevere in extending our essences through the lives of our children, and through their children. She is a liar, a snakeoil peddler bartering chimera for generative fluid, which she sucks out of us before casting our withered husks onto the fire. And so we fall, row upon row like seasons of corn, but not until we relinquish our seed into her exploitive hands. For in the end, we all die, and only Hope lives on. And we rot, sometimes mourned for a season, but presently forgotten. Ultimately, and like it or not, we are the future’s dirt. THIS is the state of affairs we choose to subject our children to.
Naturally, this is based on my feeling that life ultimately comes to nothing, although its truth doesn't hinge on annihilation. Even if the futurists' most ideal of wet dreams comes to fruition, there are questions concerning utility, risk, and stability to be reckoned with (you might want to go over my articles at the other blog when you have some free time...I and others have addressed these extensively). And your religious viewpoint, if true, makes things infinitely worse, guaranteeing the prolonging of horrible suffering forever and ever, amen; i.e. my empathy is bigger than yours...LOL!
As for the sterilization question, if we actually had the means, I would answer 'yes'.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteAs far as this...
"
I have hope because God has made a promise. And God keeps His promises, because He is not a liar. Circular reasoning, based on a solid foundation - God is."
My belief is that your god is a product of hope, mixed in with other human emotions like greed, malice, revenge, and probably some others I'm can't think of right now due to the massive of lung material I'm coughing up :(
massive 'amounts'...sign.
ReplyDeleteJesus! 'sigh', that is. Man, I am quickly turning to mush :(((
ReplyDeleteOk, I finally looked up antinatalism, and I must say at first blush I'm as impressed by it as I am by objectivism and libertarianism.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be a logical extension of "You can't make me do that (e.g., pay taxes), because I didn't ask to be born" combined with someone who is essentially unhappy.
I mean, why stop with children? True, it's the ultimate selfish act, but to a lesser extent so is marriage, friendship... in fact, the only way to insure that one is never the cause of anyone's unhappiness is to COMMIT SUICIDE! RIGHT NOW! DO NOT EVEN PET THE CAT ON THE WAY, cause maybe the cat didn't want to be woken up from its nap and now you've ruined its afternoon...
I can see how it would have its dark appeal, though, if I had given birth to a child with a painful, incurable disease, or to, say, Jeffrey Dahmer...
I'm childfree, btw, but not because of antinatalism.
I think people are either "cup half full" or "cup half empty" and the resulting philosophical stance then appeals to them (whether materialist or supernatural). I couldn't find the reference to a study I read years ago that there is a genetic difference between people who are naturally happy or unhappy.
Meanwhile, this is me (the one in the tree), if you search for:
xkcd.com/167 - Nihilism
(I tried to embed a link and I couldn't - also can't do blockquotes...)
Just to clarify, I'm not urging anyone at any time to actually commit suicide, that was a rhetorical flourish...
ReplyDeletenedbreak:
ReplyDeleteIt would only be based on a solid foundation if it had evidence which was verifiable and, at that, an amount proportionate to the claim. This is not true and therefore one cannot presume any of your premises (i.e., god made a promise, he keeps his promises, etc.).
Also, your description of hope is misleading given the use of the word in common dictum. While I'm aware that you're using it in the archaic sense (that you're identifying a confidence in something happening), others will see it in another way.
ildi:
ReplyDeleteI think that you take it in a way that he doesn't mean it. From what I gathered, it isn't encouraging any nihilism or non-accountability for ones actions once alive. It's addressing only, and specifically, the bringing into existence a life. Essentially, it's a counter-movement to the natural inclination towards propagating with the assumption that existence is better than non-existence.
Or I could be completely misunderstanding Jim there (and I'm not sure if I explained it correctly).
ildi, since becoming a Christian, I have lost most everything I worked for. My future only promises more pain. What reason would I have not to commit suicide?
ReplyDeleteildi:
ReplyDeleteRather than go into the justifications for antinatalism, you might check out the background at my antinatalism.net blog, where the discussion is more fleshed out. I only brought it up here because of nedbrek's 'hope' issue, and it's probably more than a little off-topic in this thread.
shadb: In a nutshell, you're correct. Both from experiential realities which are often glossed over, and also through sheer risk assessment. Again, the other blog speaks to the subject much more thoroughly. Oh, and did I mention I have a book coming out on the subject? :) My Amazon page is up for pre-orders...http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Antinatalist-Jim-Crawford/dp/1616583452...and here's the publisher...http://ninebandedbooks.com/
nedbrek: Your reasons to suicide or not to suicide are your own, drawn from your own experiential database. There's no template to measure yourself against. A million people do it a year, with twenty to thirty times failed attempts, for all kinds of personal reasons. But bringing new life into existence is playing russian roulette, on several levels, with people who never gave their consent to drag them into the game. As Ildi points out, procreation is a purely selfish act. Not so sure about her other examples. Nevertheless, the unborn are dragged into an existence destined to suffer and die. This is nothing to glory in, simply because 'we do all kinds of stuff for selfish reason, so why not this?'
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteBTW, might I say that you're really being a pain in the ass, forcing me to toggle between blogs like this...LOLOL! j/k
hey jim (or should i use metamorpph?)
ReplyDelete^However, that framework is there for a reason, and shouldn’t be overridden on a whim, or because we allow our wish thinking to render our skeptical firewalls inoperative. Considering any question, it’s best to expose one’s self to as many conduits of information as one can.^
wise words but one problem i see is that atheists also abandon their skeptical firewalls when data begs a different conclusion than their preferred one. i've seen this happen to many times to count where a group of atheists just ignores some thing a believer says
i feel you on the common sense thing but i see a problem in that as you say, facts are often counter intuitive that means they often go ^against^ common sense so what then? common sense has led to all sorts of wrong beliefs so i'm not sure what the advantage really is
also regarding the pyramid i would wonder how ^could^ we justify a claim that et's had something to do with it? to me that is the only way we can move bob and carol's discussion outside the realm of opinion
lastly, it's encouraging to see that atheists correct other atheists here. i'll add that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does ^not^ apply to an open system, but a ^closed^ one and it's a contradiction to say in one comment ^the universe is flat and accelerating^ then say in another comment that ^the universe is a closed system^
not to incite but because of that i say the implication that Nedbrek seems fairly clueless about physics was not only rude but ironic because here's Ildi making all these wrong claims about physics
that's why i think we should all treat each other good and make good faith presumptions
ildi, since becoming a Christian, I have lost most everything I worked for. My future only promises more pain. What reason would I have not to commit suicide?
ReplyDeleteWell, my argument is that the one thing that is certain in this vale of tears is change, but if you are absolutely certain that your future only promises more pain (which whose doesn't, really?) and that the pain/pleasure ratio is weighted so heavily toward pain that your life is not worth living, then maybe you should commit suicide, a la Richard Dreyfuss in "Whose Life is it Anyway?"
However, your belief system probably weights your pain/pleasure ratio differently because suicide = hell = eternal pain, and waiting for natural death as a saved Christian = heaven = eternal pleasure, so I say wait it out.
(Why am I feeling like Ann Landers all of a sudden?)
My mother was a "cup half empty" kind of person, and to be honest I can't really blame her... after my Dad died she went into "I'm waiting to join your father in heaven" mode, and gave up all the things that she used to enjoy, such as gardening and reading... the only problem with this was that we seem to come from sturdy stock so it took her 15 years, and that was after she ended up with dementia and in a wheelchair as a result of "use it or lose it."
Ok, now y'all are depressing the crap out of me.
I strive for rude and ironic...
ReplyDelete...and you're right GR, I made some hasty and incorrect statements about physics, seeing as how I knew cosmology wasn't really what nedbrek wanted to discuss, but that's no excuse.
ReplyDeleteGRandall:
ReplyDeleteHowdy! Jim is fine; metamorphhh is just sorta/kinda my nom de plume, something carried over from old chatroom days that ended up sticking.
Firstly, I sort of cringed to myself when I used the word 'intuition', since it seems to mean a lot of things to different people, and is generally used rather loosely, anyhow. Suffice it to say for now that 'intuition' isn't always synonymous with 'common sense', at least the way I was using it. I'll get into that more in the series, where I'll try to illustrate that we most often go wrong when we ignore our common-sense...though not always.
I also recognize the fact that parties are often less than thorough, and sometimes downright ingenuous, in conversations where everybody's interested in 'making the kill'. That's what I'm trying to move away from this year. I'm trying my best to come from the negative spaces in this series, with substance emerging more naturally from the dialogue, rather than just cram my opinions down peoples' throats. Tone the conflict down a click or two, you know? And to be a responsible moderator where I can.
"that's why i think we should all treat each other good and make good faith presumptions"
A wonderful sentiment. Not always possible, but probably more possible than we often allow. Your balancing comments are welcome here. That is, as long as you're not cl trying to wedge a toe in here for further future mischief...LOLOL!
Man, I'm like an elephant!
GRandall:
ReplyDeleteOops, I just re-read something of yours I think I take issue with-
"a contradiction to say in one comment ^the universe is flat and accelerating^ then say in another comment that ^the universe is a closed system^"
From my limited understanding, a closed system is simply a system with nothing going in or out; as opposed to, say, the idea Fred Hoyle came up with to try and salvage his Steady State Theory way back when, that being that a new influx of matter was constantly being deposited into the universe through white holes. Not sure if 'flat and accelerating' contradicts that or not.
Yeah, that's not the part I got wrong... I got the second law of thermodynamics wrong and I missed that the heat death of the universe is a possible ending. I did find this, though:
ReplyDeleteTaking a mathematical viewpoint. Assuming the universe is infinite. That means certain thermodynamic properties would no longer be defined by the simple fact that most mathematical operations involving infinity are undefined or have no meaning. The conclusion therefore is that, if the universe is infinite, then the thermodynamic state is undefined.
ildi: "then maybe you should commit suicide"
ReplyDeleteAnd atheists wonder why they have a bad reputation :P
nedbrek: Excellent job demonstrating how to cherry-pick a comment in order to create a strawman.
ReplyDeleteildi, sorry if that came off as a strawman attack. I did have a stick-out tongue smiley on there! :)
ReplyDeleteBut, I think I have a valid complaint. When I tell atheists about my pain, the most common response is "why not kill yourself". It doesn't come across as particularly caring or empathetic. Two things commonly considered virtues.
Worse, I have never seen any logical response that doesn't amount to "kill yourself". I'm not a Catholic, so suicide is a sin, but no sin can send you to Hell, if you are saved. The pain/pleasure ratio is unchanged.
It didn't come off as a strawman attack, it was a strawman attack. The emoticon just makes it passive-aggressive.
ReplyDeleteStrawman: When I tell atheists about my pain, the most common response is "why not kill yourself".
Let's review what you actually asked in its entirety (which, btw, I also pasted at the top of my response): ildi, since becoming a Christian, I have lost most everything I worked for. My future only promises more pain. What reason would I have not to commit suicide?
You're the one bringing up suicide as an option. I happen to believe that as autonomous beings we have the right to choose how/when to end our existence. That doesn't mean that I don't think people should try counseling/therapy first, and that I wouldn't be devastated if someone close to me committed suicide, but bottom line, if I agreed that someone's quality of life sucked enough that they wanted to end it (which is why I gave the movie as an example), they have the right to do so.
Besides,as jim said above, this is a blog thread, dude, a bullshit session. I was assuming your question was rhetorical, not that you're actually asking my advice about whether to commit suicide or not. If you really want my advice, then I would tell you to turn to your pastor or go to a counselor or health care professional.
You seem to be the one drawing the conclusion that there is no logical response that doesn't amount to "kill yourself." I strongly disagree. As I said before, the one constant in this life is that it always changes, and since I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't want to deprive myself of any positive experiences. Why do I care when I won't know any different once I'm dead? I don't know, but I do, so I have to assume this is the result of evolutionary pressures working in me that ultimately keep the species alive.
So, what exactly are you looking for? A reason to live? A reason to quit your religion? How come the belief that God never gives anyone a burden heavier than they can bear isn't working for you? If you're going to heaven anyway, are you trying to get permission to commit suicide, and atheists are the obvious bad guys to give it to you?
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry about your pain, and also for the fact that more atheists don't show sympathy toward your plight. Funny, though, because I've often heard the same response toward my antinatilism views from Christians. Maybe you get more sympathy from that side of the fence, 'cause that's the side you're on? Hm? Maybe? :)
You asked me on the other blog about 'natural morality'. I've always felt somewhat bemused by the seeming inability of many theists (not you, necessarily) to understand this concept. Leaving aside the possible inner, evolutionary driven impulses for the moment- the feelings and restraints fashioned by basic evolutionary principles which might, say, keep dogs from each others' throats in a pack situation- I see morality as nothing more than a necessary dynamic developing within groups of people living together. To avoid constant fragmentation, rules are implemented to curtail individual actions that might threaten the stability of the group. Authorities are put in place to uphold the rules. Gods are invented to reinforce the authorities. Children are indoctrinated from a very early age, both overtly and by osmosis, to psychologically reinforce the reinforcement. All this helps to insure the survival of the culture, while the culture serves as a conduit of vicarious immortality for the individual, which feeds back into his survival instinct.
Of course, this is all much more complicated when it comes to dealing with specifics. There's a lot of conflict between the individual and society, and each culture deals with it in different ways. That's why there is diversity amongst cultures. However, there's also a lot of universality, since all of us are similar biological organisms.
I just see nothing at all mysterious about this notion of natural morality, nedbrek. It seems to be an ongoing process emerging naturally from people living together, and NOT as some template informing people from the inside, except perhaps for the rudimentary impulses I alluded to earlier, which are supported and built upon to the extent that they serve whatever cultural balance is maintained between the individual and his society.
God morality, on the other hand, neither makes sense from a philosophical standpoint, nor lines up with how the world actually seems to work. But I'll leave that for another time.
ildi, "the one constant in this life is that it always changes, and since I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't want to deprive myself of any positive experiences"
ReplyDeleteOf course, change is sometimes for the worse... :)
I can understand the attitude of "live for the moment". But, I don't think that is compatible with rational thought and logic.
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete"I can understand the attitude of "live for the moment". But, I don't think that is compatible with rational thought and logic."
I'm not so sure that I see how it's incompatible. Rationality serves the organism; or at least, it tries to, which admittedly doesn't always work out since all of us are, to a certain degree, bundles of contradiction. But 'living for the moment' is simply the attempt to be relatively happy from moment to moment. Not to be taken too literally, of course, since any given experiential moment also contains our plans and desires for the subsequent moments we're anticipating. For instance, we'll often put off immediate gratification for what we hope will be a better payoff down the road. I don't see this is much different from Jesus' saying 'Take no thought for the morrow'. You know...don't worry, be happy! LOL! Easier said than done, admittedly.
metamorphh, you make a good point.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a good term for what I meant by "rational thought". Maybe "meaning" or "deep thought". Basically, taking the implications of one's principles and applying it all the way through to all people for all time. Sometimes I just call this "theology" (where you insert your highest ideals for god).
Your antinatalism complies with this. Hedonism does not (since we can only optimize for individuals, trading off cost/benefits for groups turns into politics).
Hopefully that is clearer.
I can understand the attitude of "live for the moment". But, I don't think that is compatible with rational thought and logic.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking more along the lines of live in the moment, and I don't see why not... after all, what can you be sure of except for this moment? The future hasn't happened, and the past is over. One of your peeps, Alan Watts said:
I have realized that the past and future are real illusions, that they exist in the present, which is what there is and all there is.
I don't know if you've ever heard of Mihály CsÃkszentmihályi; he's a psychologist who studies happiness and creativity. He defines happiness as 'flow' - when you become so absorbed in some activity that you lose sense of time, space and ego. He wrote a book called Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience that was pretty good.
I find it pretty satisfying as a working definition of happiness. I can usually get into the flow when I'm dancing or gardening, and more things I find like that, the happier I'll be.
nedbrek: You said...
ReplyDelete"Of course, change is sometimes for the worse... :)"
Indeed. In fact, that's often the case, depending on the conditions fate has handed us, and increasingly so as we get older. And then, of course, change culminates in death. This is why I'm an antinatalist. This, and because we have no idea what horribles of life any given being may encounter on the way to the grave. It's one thing to take a personal risk, quite another when we coerce others to take risks without consent. I have two children. At best, they will live reasonably happy lives, and die without any devastating illnesses or tragedy on the way to their graves. However, I am reminded that any and all of the horrible things existence has to offer do actually happen to real people, and often they come in bunches. When we procreate, we choose to inflict these risks on new lives, who beforehand experienced absolutely no deprivation, for the simple fact that they didn't exist. And why do we do it? Every reason is selfish, even if our reason comes cloaked in justifications, like 'he/she is my gift to the world!'. A utility. Another body for the workforce, to pay taxes, to stand in front of our enemies guns for us, to take care of us when we're old, etc.
In your religious scenario, things are exponentially worse. To bring a soul into the world that would have even the slightest risk of living an actual eternity in great, great agony, with no hope of respite, is absolutely the most indecent thing I can imagine. Even St. Paul pointed out somewhere that things would soon get so bad, merely on earth, that it would be best to forbear childbirth. Or was it Jesus? My bible days are far behind me, I'm afraid.
Anyway, there's my spiel. I don't want to get my two blogs mixed up too much...LOL!
Wait a minute - you're an antinatalist and you have two children? Am I missing something here?
ReplyDeleteFor instance, we'll often put off immediate gratification for what we hope will be a better payoff down the road.
ReplyDeleteHave you been paying attention to my stock market strategy? It's not working.
Wait a minute - you're an antinatalist and you have two children? Am I missing something here?
Some things are inevitable? And beyond our control? (Esp. men)
With that last comment, I see that I go away for 2 days and over 50 comments! Not bad. Not sure I followed most of it, and not sure how responsive to the OP everything was, so I'll leave my comments sit.
ReplyDeleteJim, I read some of your antinatalism stuff before, but never really delved into it. Very counter-intuitive. My first response was "Well, this doesn't bode well for the continuation of my species" and didn't get much beyond that.
And beyond our control? (Esp. men)
ReplyDeleteoh no you di'int! I have one word for you: snip!
snip
ReplyDeleteBeen there, done that. I actually have a t-shirt, which I think my wife threw away.
ildi:
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, and as is often the case, we come to enlightenment too late to do anything about it. Well, I AM writing a book! :)
S.I.
ReplyDeleteThings shifted emphasis somewhere in the thread. Maybe twice. Maybe thrice! But nedbrek gave me some fodder for the next post, so I guess it's all good :)
Talk is cheap, but ultimately good for the sou...ummm...psyche.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteyou're right on the closed universe thing. in Ildi's comment, the ^flat and accelerating^ part preceded the ^open system closed system^ part so i thought she meant open and closed in terms of the universe's ^geography^ not its ^energy state^ if that makes sense. if the ^open system closed system^ part applied to the universe's energy state then there is no contradiction i just misread Ildi sorry about that
as far as mischief if i ever get outta line please any of you feel free to give me a swift kick to the nuts or an abusive verbal lashing. it is discouraging and also bad for the debate when these things spin into shit talk and bad faith assumption i try to err on the side of balance and for me its the statements that matter i could care less about people's personalities and fueds. of course, that doesn't mean i like everybody or anybody, either
still though jim i'm wondering what your thoughts are on how we could tell if the pyramid or some structure was made or designed by et's
GRandall:
ReplyDelete"it is discouraging and also bad for the debate when these things spin into shit talk and bad faith assumption i try to err on the side of balance and for me its the statements that matter i could care less about people's personalities and feuds."
I suppose some of that is inevitable. The problem with conversations that extend over a lot of time and threads, especially when you've got diametrically opposed positions, is that people have agendas, and sometimes exercise rhetoric to trap people into saying what they really don't mean to say. Assumptions of bad faith aren't always created equal; sometimes they're justified. And feuds have their origins. However, I understand your point, and that's why I'm doing my best to bypass that stuff (unless I get particularly pissed off :) ).
As far as determining whether pyramids were made or designed by ETs or not, I think it's a matter of accumulating evidence, and coming to common sense conclusions based on that evidence. In the case of the pyramids, what would impel us to go beyond the prosaic explanation that they are human constructions? We know ancient kings built monuments to themselves, we know there was adequate manpower for the task, we've found nothing exotic in the building material, we've discovered the ruins of camps and bakeries for large numbers of people in the vicinity, we've got plans and other records pertaining to the construction, there has been at least one small scale re-enactment to validate the feasibility of the task without super-ordinary means, we've found graffiti made by competing teams of workers, tool markings at the quarry sites, etc, etc, etc. What in the world would lead us to the conclusion that outer space aliens were involved, other than imagination spurred on by mythological motifs?
Are you familiar with Coral Castle in Homestead, Fla? There have been similar claims of exotic technology, ufos, and psychic powers to explain how one guy built this amazing place. Notwithstanding that he had a young assistant who explained that the rocks were moved with simple block and tackle, and painstakingly whittled into shape. Or how about crop circles? Nothing ticked me more than seeing a 'cropcircleologist' explain how some weird magnetic force must have bent the grain because of this and that weird reason, then right after that seeing a couple of practical jokers videotaping themselves knocking it down with a two-by-four and a piece of rope. Hilarious!
All this has its roots in credulity, I think. "I can't understand how this was done, I certainly couldn't do it, therefore the explanation must be rooted in something other than the natural!" But before we start speculating outside the natural order of things, we need reasons to do so. Hell, I could speculate that aliens built my '88 Mazda if I wanted to, and fashion pseudo-logical responses to any and all challenges. However, I simply assume it was built on an assembly line, and leave it at that. Why? Because that's the way I've always known things to work, and because there's no compelling reason to believe otherwise, or to even seriously consider unusual alternatives. Same with the pyramids, the way I see it.