In my youthful arrogance, I used to think that religious people were stupid. This was confirmed by the observation that the most religious societies on Earth were usualy the most backward.

But time has changed my mind on that premise. I had to concede that there were a lot of religious people who had done a much better out of life than I had, so I could no longer claim that I was smarter than they were.

So now I now think differently. I think that religious people simply have a different neurological makeup than non religious people, and the movie "A Brilliant Mind" had some influence over my new opinion. In that movie, a very intelligent methemetician (played by Russel Crowe) experiences hallucinations and interacts with people who do not exist.

This seemed remarkably similar to religious experiences, which religious people often claim are real.

The idea that some intelligent people can perceive illusion as reality seems to explain why many intelligent people are religious. I am not suggesting that they are crazy, I am simply suggesting that their natural thought processes are different to mine. They seem to have a compulsive psychological need to believe in the idea of a benign supernatural being overseeing their daily lives, a need which I just do not have. But this does not detract from their intelligence.

I think that the reason why Merideth Doig's friend became so angry, was because she was inadvertantly suggesting that religious people were stupid. And for an intelligent person like her friend who's sense of self esteeem is linked to his undoubted high intelligence, that was ithe ultimate insult.

We have had decades of gentle, thoughtful compassionate atheists who were careful not to ruffle the feathers of their sensitive, touchy theist friends. The net result was close to zero. We have had less than ten years of aggressive in-your-face atheists using the power of modern communications to spread their message expertly and effectively across the planet, and there are clear signs of a massive shift towards rationality in Western belief systems. Of course, some of the manifestations of religious sensitivity like 9/11 and the shooting of Benazir Bhutto helped a bit too.

I'm sticking with what works. If we can't convince people then at least we can inconvenience them.

I agree religiousness and spirituality can be viewed individually and as group-think, although there is more than that distinct dichotomy - the two are intertwined. The individual focus is a form of self-fulfilment leading to self-satisfaction that is too inward, too limiting. The group perpetuates the limits. Assertions about intellectual dishonesty are too confronting.

So does that explain why the Rationalists wrote such a limp submission to DEEWR on school chaplains, essentially saying they had no objection to them 'per se'?

Sometimes it pays to be honest and tell people what you really think.

I wouldn't have bothered to apologise to your frined at all, it wouldn't have been accepted anyway.

Bigots are bigots, and Richardheads are Richardheads, and those who 'believe' in anything as fanciful as the Catholic church need to be given a jolt every now and then.

But submissions to DEEWR need to be a little more direct, and a little less timid, than the one the Rationalists put in.

Interesting article.

My initial reaction was that I don't think it matters what you believe (and we all believe in something), I think this article would offend and patronise you.

Just because someone calls themselves a rationalist, it doesn't necessarily mean their utterances will be rational. (And yes, I am very aware of the irony of this statement based on my username!) What I hear from this article is, "As I have put all beliefs aside, what I say is rational." I'm not sure that works...

The man's emotive response is probably due to the open disdain/pity that non religious people feel towards those inflicted with religion. Much like being over weight, it is partially self inflicted, largely curable, and limits the sufferer ability (in this case rational thought)

However, in this case, the sufferers huddle together in groups where spiritual leaders tell them that they are all OK and take their money from them. These parasitic organisations are even tax exempt, and have infected sufficient people to be allowed to spread the infliction in public schools.

The man reacted like many fat people would do on hearing the truth.

The author’s concluding lines

>> William James, the great American philosopher of religion, made a useful distinction between healthy-minded and sick-souled religiousness. Let's not harm the healthy minded in our attempt to cure the sick-souled.<<

seem to indicate that she prefers William James to Christopher Hitchens on these matters. I cannot think of a believer - including her, apparently too emotional, Catholic friend - who would not have the same preference.

On yers SM.

I have always assumed you were of the 'believer' mob.

Good to see we agree on this vital issue.

Religion in Australia steals $30b from our back pockets via the ATO system, and produce nothing useful in return.

All their 'charity' work could be done without being tinged with the lies of religion, by anyone with a desire to help their community.

The irony is that Dr Merdith is absolutely sure of what she believes or does not believe. Now that's not very rational for a rationalist who deny absolutes. Then again only a fool says in their heart there is no god when creation screams evidence in their face every day. Self Righteousess does however blind a person from seeing things as they are.

btw hopefully Hitchens will wake up to his stupidity and ask his evangelical doctor for spiritual healing as he seeks physcial healing. He certainly needs it.

"Much like being over weight, it is partially self inflicted, largely curable, and limits the sufferer ability (in this case rational thought)"

"Anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest"

I am supprised at many of the comments here. I am not supprised at the reaction of the authors friend one bit. If the 'humour' had been stating to a woman that all women should stay either in the kitchen or the bedroom, or that a 'black man' should refer to all 'white men' as master, or that all homosexual men should act like the sallon hair dresser sterotype we would not even bat an eyelid and say that the reaction was well deserved. However when it comes to religion it seems that anything can be said and done and it is all alright. The above quotes show that the general concept of those who believe in religion are that of spineless idiots who need a crutch in order just to survive. It is a insult of the highest order, which any rational person should be able to see, and would be comparable to saying that a woman is only good for cooking and making children.

I would say that the author needs to do a bit more work on being a rationalist, it seems that the most rational explaination as to why the reaction occured is staring her right in the face

I was a member of our country town high school debating team.

The other 3 members were all daughters of ministers of different religions. All three spent much of our debate preparation time trying to convert me to their belief.

After listening to them, & doing some study, I could still not believe in any god.

What I did find was that societies based on christian beliefs are mostly kinder & more supportive of their populations than those not so based. Despite all the dreadful things done in the name of christianity, it does, today, appear to be a force for good in the world.

Therefor, I suppose you could say I am a believer in christianity, just not the god stuff that goes with it.

runner,

What evidence?

Runner

"Self Righteousess does however blind a person from seeing things as they are".

Quite so. So how do we measure who has the greater level of SR?

You, or the rationalist author?

AN, "those who believe in religion are that of spineless idiots who need a crutch in order just to survive" sounds pretty accurate to me.

Hasbeen, "Therefor[e], I suppose you could say I am a believer in christianity, just not the god stuff that goes with it".

Like all the Bishops in the C of E, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Spong and many others. That just shows though that there is absolutely no need for the special status of religions in our society, since we do not need the superstructure that leeches its way through our taxes and avoids any hard questioning.

If there were any real xtians inside a church, they'd have thrown their corrupt masters out long ago.

I look forward to an Eygptian/Libyian style uprising within the pews of the xtian church here in Oz.

It won't come of course, because of the well reasoned Arthur offering above... 'spineless idiots in search of a crutch'.

Arthur N,

Someone doesn't choose to be female, gay or black. But they choose to worship a god. If they are secure in their decision, any teasing should be water off a ducks back.

Same goes for those who are secure in their non-belief.

I think the agnostics are the most secure. Atheists seem altogether too keen to convince people they're right. I think the ultimate atheist is one who just doesn't care because it because it is so irrelevant to them. Like me.

I also think some people look to take offence. So when you offend them, you have actually made them happy. Then I'm happy for offending them, and they're happy to be outraged.

It's a win-win.

What's the point of having a faith when it is never tested. If everyone believed in god, it would negate the whole experience.

Imagine religion with nobody to convert, nobody to feel better than, nobody to tell that they're going to hell, no teasing and second thoughts to be overcome. What's the point in that.

The righteous need the sinners. The sinners need the righteous. It's all good.

Houellebecq, Friday, 1 April 2011 11:49:09 AM: "I think the ultimate atheist is one who just doesn't care because it because it is so irrelevant to them. Like me."

Irrelevant? Not unless you don't pay any tax to support the tax-favoured status of religious groups. Not unless you never want the option of voluntary euthanasia for you, your family or friends. Not unless you don't care that the ACL is running a strong campaign against marriage equality. Not unless you don't care about women in Queensland who don't have full access to legal abortion. If religious people would leave the rest of us alone and not seek to impose their views through legislation then Australia would be a better country.

Excellent Meredith.

Pity comments don't entirely seem to reflect your final line, just yet.

But of course belief systems float upon the seas of emotion. By definition one must abandon no small measure of reason and evidence to maintain them. From the three monotheistic faiths and their Alms Race, to new age therapies, to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccine advocates, to jilted lovers or defensive parents of those who commit horrific crimes. All have identified with, and internalised something, that does not exist.

And without reason or evidence the fault must, by elimination, be uncomfortably clear: it is the individual. As much as we try to build bridges, faith seems to be a durable cognitive detriment. Abandon Reason and evidence all ye who enter here.

In many ways you were asking your friend to accommodate a mindset that challenges his cognitive acuity, behaviour of other friends and significant others. How he sees himself based on the positive feedback of others. In fact his very ontology. And to accept your position passively he must - albeit briefly - identify with the ontological other. Tough gig. For other "believers" it demands leaving an entire, sometimes privileged life, behind. To risk the retributive altruism of the tribe.

I too squirm under the label "atheist", being one of those rare creatures to have never "believed", rather driven by a desire to "conclude". That's about the best description I can muster but as a "non-theist" only one goal supersedes universal abolition of bigotry (an intellectual offence I freely admit to) and equal rights.

And that is to embrace the ontological other.

If only they'd stop running from reality long enough for me to do so ;-)

TBC
"...those who 'believe' in anything as fanciful as the Catholic church need to be given a jolt every now and then."

Hear hear. And what about those who believe that the State presumptively represents the greater good; or represents the people more and better than the people's own voluntary and peaceable actions represent themselves and the greater good; or who presume that the State represents superior virtue, knowledge and capacity; or who believe that the State can rationalise scarcity by creating benefits out of thin air using nothing but aggressive force? Surely this is intellectually no better than religion, and morally worse?

Your point being what, Peter?

That St. Peter and his chums are the pinnacle of life-on-Earth, and we should all bow to that wisdom?

Or that everything is bollocks no matter what?

TBC,

I don't think they are spineless idiots, just "special" and deserving of our pity.

beware the greenies and feminists!

The greatest zealots, the true believers today are not 'christian', but from new pseudo religions, the greenies, the feminists, the lefties, the human-rights mob...

These are the people who blindly follow the offical line, the doctrine, of their belief system. The people with the power and organisation and funding...

My beliefs have not changed since my teens, but the degree of aggression with which I advance them has diminished greatly. I am happy to declare myself an atheist when I am confident that this will not cause offence. I greatly admire Richard Dawkins, but would not have chosen "The God Delusion" as a book title.
These days, I am not out to convert believers, but prefer to concentrate my energies on preventing them from influencing immature minds. In particular, I try to prevent the resources of the state from being misapplied in that way.

TBC
My point being that, when it comes to one group using coercion to force others to obey their arbitrary opinions, the beliefs of the statists are in no better position than those of the theists. For example, tithing used to be compulsory, and it was used to fund a particular religion favoured by the state whether the particular subject wanted to or not. This is ethically and intellectually no better than using taxation to fund the propagation of state-worshipping institutions, including the ABC, and compulsory indoctrination of children in state schools. If we believe in religious toleration, how about political toleration - why should some people be forced to pay for the arbitrary, and irrational, political opinions of others. Or should we all bow to that wisdom?

>Or that everything is bollocks no matter what?
Humans display a great ability to hold belief systems that a minute's reflection would show are probably bollocks, of which religions are IMO a good example. However such credulity is part of the rich tapestry of life and people should be free to believe something or not, if they want. But they should *not* be free to force other people to fund or to comply with their bollocking beliefs; and the most prevalent modern superstition is the widespread belief - that just happens to be inculcated under compulsion at public expense for 10 years - in the presumptive goodness and expedience of the State to acheive virtually anything you could care to mention, from managing the economy, to regulating wages, to educating children, to regulating light-bulbs (to save the planet), to regulating baby-sitting, to regulating lamingtons, to fine-tuning the temperature of the planet, to .... is there anything that people today think the state *cannot* do?

Atheism, global warming and political correctness have more zealots and preachers than organised religion these days. They are the new secular religions.

Unfortunately, their proponents cannot see they are simply advocates of new religious belief systems which are often more feeble than the ones they seek to criticise.

Its easy to believe you are superior because of your belief systems but it is just not true. How about we allow each person to have their own beliefs without trying to convert them? That goes for Atheists as well as religious people.

Like many of us, the author learned that lesson the hard way.

The most self-righteous are those who believe their chosen path is suitable for everyone else, that others should conform to their worldview and/or be provided with, at the cost of the State, special privileges over others purely by virtue of their belief.

It is rational to accept the 'irrational' (in terms of belief without evidence) as part of the human psyche. The evidence is everywhere and not just in relation to religious belief.

The human psyche has many facets and irrationality is not confined to one group.

The task, and it is not an easy one, is to eradicate the sick-souled religious zealot. This would in all likelihood, have a twofold effect, in eradicating the atheist zealot who might also insist their worldview is for all.

Zealotry nearly always begets knee-jerk zealotry of the opposite.

Something to do with equal and opposite forces.

Dear Meredith, there is so much missing information here. This friend of yours, did he have his own set of wheels with you riding pillion? Or did you have a motorbike also? What sort of bike? a Kawaka Ninja perhaps or a Triumph Triple Sports? maybe a Harley or a Buell? Perhaps a BMW Trail Crossover? These are all important questions in determining the personality with which we are dealing.

If you had your own wheels, did you get “under him” on a tight bend? Did you beat him off the line from a “drag start”? Did you sit in behind or pass him on the long straight?

Motor cyclists are a “breed” and much can be determined by the “wheels”. This situation is likely to have nothing to do with “belief” and might be more about “other” challenges.

Please supply photo of bike?

Peter Hume,
I agree with your post except in that you place "your" faith in the free market:
<Humans display a great ability to hold belief systems that a minute's reflection would show are probably bollocks [agreed], of which religions are IMO a good example. However such credulity is part of the rich tapestry of life and people should be free to believe something or not, if they want>
Your belief in the divine benevolence of the market is demonstrably bollocks, whereas at least those with metaphysical beliefs can't actually be proved wrong (TBC seems possessed of a belief in the Enlighenment). Not that I don't respect your right to your beliefs, they're part of the rich tapestry of life, I just don't see how the faith "laissez faire" has any right to intrude upon or obviate the convictions of other faith systems..

Reasonable article (my alias reveals my own unbeliefs). I read Dawkins' The God Delusion and was tearing my hair out at the aggressive tone, which at times approached outright intolerance. Such positions of course are a reaction to the intolerance and bigotry shown by much of the Christian Right, notably in the US. But I don't believe such people can be defeated by becoming like them.

I also agree with the comment that those believers who react emotionally to rationalist ideas may have a problem with their own self-image. I had a long-term work colleague who was a committed fundamentalist Christian, but with whom I never exchanged a cross word. We did, indeed, have a number of perfectly civilised discussions about religious matters, aimed more at understanding each others' positions than at "conversion". Clearly this person had no underlying issues with his faith and felt perfectly secure when discussing it with a committed unbeliever.

Those who have religious faith will only abandon it if they discover a reason inside their own intellectual/emotional space for doing so. There is no sense in trying to shove something down their throats. The best a rationalist can or ought do is to show believers that other world-views are possible and that a rational belief system can be no less satisfying than holding to views which can only be supported by an appeal to pure faith.

"I don't think they are spineless idiots, just "special" and deserving of our pity." - Shadow Minister

With all due respect, Shadow Minister (and other OLO commentators who drill the same vein), I don't believe those of faith deserve your pity. Intelligence, truth, and critical thought are not exclusive to any belief system (eg theism, atheism, animism, agnosticism etc etc).

Even though I'm a Christian, I possess a number of pieces of paper that speak to the secular world about intelligence. On tested Intelligence Quotient, in the top 5th percentile. On credibility to the 'common man', I work in the mining industry.

These things being said, I treat those with contrary views respectably. I believe in God, and believe that Christ is the Saviour of Humankind. The habit of atheists/agnostics to present theists as simpletons is deplorable.

I agree with the author that emotionality can cloud theological debate. However, this counts for proponents of all points-of-view, not just the theists.

Thanks Atlas.

I love how the faithful deny climate change when the rest of us don't even respect the notion of debating this fact.

Your view of "religion" is shallow. I think you mean sharing a commonality but the great thing is atheists don't follow archaic and bigoted texts or privileged leaders. We live life, experience our own thoughts and leave behind our own history. Believers are like bees in a hive - cloned to walk in step and die unaware of what just happened.

But you buggered up that childish "atheism = religion" riposte thusly:

"That goes for Atheists as well as religious people."

And for the record, it's beneath any thinking person to stoop to "am not... are too... no YOU are.... no YOU are... am not... are too...

Oh, sorry - Atman.

My bad.

and emotionalism among women. Well we wont go there!

What we’ve learned from decades of research in the psychology of decision making, probability theory and cognitive neuroscience is that what we call rational thinking is inevitably networked through with the brain’s emotion-processing centres in normally functioning human beings. Much of our purportedly rational thinking in everyday and more esoteric matters can be shown to be serially deficient, for example, in deductive logic. This should make us a tad cautious about attributing rationality or irrationality too readily when it comes to beliefs about the traditional metaphysical undecidables, and alert to the twin temptations of confirmation bias - seeking out only what confirms beliefs we already have - and self-manipulation in putting ourselves deliberately in circumstances where we are more likely to believe A than B regardless of the evidence.

What this realisation can do, though, for the purpose of affording us some compensation for our cognitive finitude, is to justify both a bias towards rational projects with an intentional methodological defeasibility - those of science or much philosophy are prototypical - and profound suspicion of any which claim invincibility and make themselves immune to critical examination and argument. It’s inevitable that we will have some personal commitment to our beliefs, but automatic hostility to their being questioned will always suggest that we have either forgotten or do not even know on what grounds we hold them. The ‘feeling of knowing’ and the ‘feeling of certainty’ are both notoriously common and notoriously unreliable, and how we navigate our social relations with that in mind is an individual acquirement and challenge.

Dave Frampton,

very nicely expressed, and our socially conditioned biases ought to give us pause as you say. Yet the problem with scientific method is precisely that it is devoid (or thinks it is) of the contextual elements that are inalienable from our social being; life is not a lab. Our social lives do not admit of controlled laboratory solutions, nor are they objectively above realist problematics. I agree completely that common opinion should be subjected to far greater scrutiny than it commonly is. But then, its object isn't generally to make a veridical breakthrough. Actual life is far more messy and truth is dependent upon the context. This is a point that analytic philosophy and the empirical sciences would do well to consider; that the irrational social context frames the objectivity. There is no objectivity per se. Thus modern science is the "witting" pawn (it is too savvy to be unwitting) of the prevailing system, and to that extent irrational.
However, I agree with your main point; we should not cherish our opinions, but treat them with disdain and welcome criticism.

MaNiK_JoSiAh,

While not questioning your intelligence, firm belief in the improbable and certainly unprovable certainly brings into question your ability for rational object decision making.

I have been a part of several teams of engineering design teams, and by no personal design of my own I have found them to be devoid of belief in the supernatural.

To most of my colleagues Christianity, Islam, etc are irrelevant and are seldom even mentioned.

Firesnake, Not quite sure what your post was about, but you clearly resent having secular beliefs called a 'religion' though the similarities to a religion are strikingly obvious.

Apparently you suffer from the very disease I mentioned; the belief that your Atheistic beliefs are superior to previous religious systems. They surely aren't, nor are they less bigoted or biased. Your main distortion is that you cannot see your belief system as a belief system.

If your high priest is Richard Dawkins then so be it.

Emotionality of Belief.

Why is it that some who say they believe in God are so emotional about it? Why is it so hard to even discuss someone's faith in the supernatural? [Meredith].

A fair query Meredith.

Meredith, similarly, when one shares a factual account or experience in their life, and it is met with ridicule, condescension, disrespect or disbelief, terming another person's "factual account" or "experience" as "emotional or emotionally based", how would you feel within that context?

Casting aside religion, and focussing on a person's belief and experiences within a relationship with God, is to many people, the most sacred, special and loving relationship one can have.

Having a person challenge or undermine a person's relationship with God (their God)is a wound to their heart, particularly in view of the fact, that I for one example, know without a doubt, that God has featured fully in my life giving me love and support on every occasion I have prayed for His/Her love and support.

Many people who have a relationship with God, and received, through prayer, love and support from God, would be hurt, when a person challenges, ridicules, blashphemes or writes off people who believe in God as 'emotional' in their beliefs.

Similarly, if you have children, when a person insults or wounds your child or loved one's heart, mocking or bullying your child, do you feel 'emotional' Meredith?

Have you ever believed in God Meredith or experienced God in your life at all?

'Experienced' as opposed to just 'believing' in God?

Until you have experienced God in your life, how are you able to pose those questions regarding 'emotionality' when not having experienced? the subject you refer to: the emotionality of belief?

"Forgive them Father(God), for they know not what they are doing" [this from Jesus Christ our Saviour].

Meredith seems to see emotionality of belief as a peculiar affliction of those with religious affiliations. However, if you look back on many of the threads on this forum you will find posters,who profess atheism or agnosticism,doing very good renditions of emotionality and holier-than-thouism.

Which makes me think that (unless you classify some of the other belief systems, such as AGW & refugee-advocacy , as quasi-religions –and,there is some merit in that!) it would be more accurately seen as a common human characteristic.

SPQR
The emotionalilty argument as I perceive it often occurs when in defending a particularl stance, the 'offended' makes a distorted analysis of what the 'intender' was proposing in many cases.

An example that comes to mind is arguments about the influence of various religious groups on policy, taxation loopholes that broadly impact on discussions around separation of Church and State eg. School Chaplaincy.

The knee-jerk reaction is to accuse the person of either God-hater (impossible for an atheist) or anti-Christian regardless of whether the points made are directed at all religious persuasions.

Just mention lack of accountability in the Catholic Church in relation to child abuse and one is suddenly accused of anti-Catholicism.

There will always be emotion and irrationality in these debates because people tend to protect those beliefs that help shape their identity. In many cases logical analysis or rational argument about the minutae gets tossed aside to defend the bigger picture.

Do you really place global warming and refugee advocacy alongside religious belief? Couldn't that be concluded as an overly emotional response designed to diminish those stances? At times, people appear to be more focussed on deflection instead of getting to the heart of an issue as a stand alone.

Pelican,
You ask:
1)“ Do you really place global warming and refugee advocacy alongside religious belief?” –absoooooluuuutely !
And not just those two , many others as well, it’s not a religious / non-religious thing-- it’s a human thing.


2) “Couldn't that be concluded as an overly emotional response designed to diminish those stances?
I’d invite anyone who might think that, to do some field research and have a wander over to some of the The Forums (lesser) competitors.
You will find little use of the labels “God hater” or “anti-Christian” but you will hear some worthy substitutes, in refugee advocacy threads, racists,rednecks,xenophobes,mean-hearted, selfish,bigotted .And in AGW threads, flat-Earthers , deniers, anti-science, dupes of big oil, charlatans.

And, those are just the ones I dare to repeat in the midst of this here much more refined company!

Mind you they aint all bad – many are thoroughly rational persons. The worst of them no longer seem to make it down our way any more

SPQR
Yes, there are some fairly strenuous insults tossed around in some of the more controversial debates and emotions run high.

I guess the sorts of emotive responses can be compared with a religious emotion in terms of protecting those views that help define personal identity including some of those you raise such as refugees and climate change. The position taken on many issues also goes to the heart of an individual's moral code or values. When those values are misconstrued, spun or misinterpreted that is where emotionality (if one must use that term) might override rational debate.

It is ironic that in the AGW debate there are so many insults flung from both sides despite the fact that the science is still out and people are repeating the 'evidence' that best suits their instinctive position.

Our politicians are no better - just listen to Question Time or events like the recent protests where Abbott had no qualms about being linked with "Bob's Bitch" type posters. I cannot imagine John Howard or Malcolm Fraser participating in such a way but the political standards have slipped more and more over the last 20 years - strangely since the advent of economic rationalism. Maybe that is the outcome when one removes the 'human' from policy and devolve everything down to numbers, productivity and human resources, spurning meaningless phrases like social capital.

HerbieTheBeagle,

The religious are perfectly entitled to lobby for laws based on their belief system. As are you. Your post sounds like sour grapes to me. What was it I was saying about the atheists? Yes, I think you would not be so upset about these inconveniences if they weren't supported by
religious people. It's plain bigotry.

WHy is it valid for you to impose your views, and your values over the religious in a democracy but not the other way around?

pelican,

I have an ambition in life to be considered a key stakeholder. Ever since I first heard the term I have wondered how one goes about being considered as such. Maybe you could put a good word in for me to the all powerful PS bureaucracy.

'Abbott had no qualms about being linked with "Bob's Bitch" type posters'
I cant believe the hypocrisy of that. Think of all the Greens events over the years using Hitler taunts, 'George Bush's bitch' etc (yes it's not really a gendered term in that context) at The Rodent.

Joooolia is playing the politics of gender. She's being a precious little princess because it suits her. Maybe we should start calling her 'mean and tricky'.

The sign thing is actually used in that political series 'The Thick of It' where the guy stands behind a sign at the strategic behest of mischievous media men.

Anyway it's all good ol' fashioned rumble tumble.

As to religious beliefs, the most emotionally held are the anti-economic rationalists.

Houlley
"I have an ambition in life to be considered a key stakeholder. Ever since I first heard the term I have wondered how one goes about being considered as such. Maybe you could put a good word in for me to the all powerful PS bureaucracy."

It's easy Houlley, anyone can be a steak holder just go to your nearest barby. Would love to help you but I am afraid I am persona non gratis in the PS bureacracy these days. We are all stakeholders just by virtue of being alive. Parents are now apparently stakeholders in school communities, my daughter's school now has a Moving Forward Officer. Maybe you could apply for one of those jobs.

Despite your propensity to assume the worst, my reference was to the two major parties who have up until recently tended to avoid overt displays of vitriole. The debate in the Senate Chamber gets pretty hot these days. It has nothing to do with anyone being a 'precious princess' - that is your anti-feminism underpants showing again. Green supporters have sometimes - unfortunately - opted for the extreme caricatures in their protests.

Anti-economic rationalists are also capable of being emotional - it is an emotive subject. There are no exceptions within any group I can think of other than the agnostic fence sitters of the world.

I'll take some degree of emotion over complacency any day as long as with it there is some level of analysis and thought and perhaps even courage. Peter Hume is a good example of someone I disagree with - I don't have his faith in the markets but he does a good job of arguing his case and for that I respect his contributions.

Thanks Pelican

Squeers
“Our social lives do not admit of controlled laboratory solutions”

Agreed. And this shows why social science cannot be empirical science; there is no way to control for the critical variables, to know whether B happens *because of* or *despite* A. People are not atoms or stones or planets. Human action is purposive action, and all purposes are subjective. There is no way to quantify, to measure, or to compare people’s subjective evaluations, either as between different people, or the same person at different times. Therefore there is no way to perform valid mathematical operations on social data. All statistical measures are measures of historical contingencies. They are *history*, not *theory*. They do *not* have any necessary explaining or predictive power.

Having disowned the case for empiricism and positivism in social science, we should expect you now to abandon any recourse to them.

“…nor are they objectively above realist problematics.”

What does that mean?

If it’s true, surely you have provided an irrefutable ethical argument against any particular policy recommendation, except a policy to repel with aggression any action involving more aggression than the enforcement of the policy? This would leave unjustified the vast bulk of governmental activity, including all economic interventions which, as I recall, you are in favour of?

“There is no objectivity per se.”

Please define objectivity?

Why is there no objectivity per se?

“Thus modern science is the … pawn … of the prevailing system, and to that extent irrational.”
Agreed. However what objection to irrationality can you make, if you don’t accept the possibility of objectivity?

BTW, you still haven’t answered me whether Pythagoras’s theorem can be objectively proved or disproved. Can it and if so why? Or not, and if not, why not?

“I agree with your main point; we should not cherish our opinions, but treat them with disdain and welcome criticism.”
How can we welcome criticism if we have no objective means to determine whether something is true or not? Just consult our own opinion again in a circle?

'Just consult our own opinion again in a circle?'

That actually works quite well for me. It's also surprisingly popular.

'Pythagoras’s theorem can be objectively proved'

What's proof? It is consistent in the boundaries it exists in. Not sure that counts if the boundaries are not proven. I had a physics lecturer once tell me there is on objective reason why the earth might not in 10 minutes time stop spinning. Then again that guy reckoned that cricket balls should swing less in humid conditions, and that he could see in 4 dimensions.

pelican,

It would be my proudest day to attain the position of Moving Forward Officer. Wow. Just wow.

I don't think agnostics really sit on the fence. It's just that it's not relevant to them. Like it's not relevant to me who wins Master Chef, as I don't watch it. If I was asked to have a punt, obviously I'd bet that there is no god. But I don't feel any need to convince anyone, and I am as happy mocking atheists as much as the religious. The mocking is the important part to me.

It interests me that people should think that the onus is on non-believers to prove non-existence. I like that idea. It can be applied humorously to all sorts of avenues. The Fliying Spahgetti Monster being just one. His noodly goodness. But I like the idea of dogmatically sticking to rules that don't make sense too. I think religions are weakened when they change or move with the times. I don't see the point of doing that. They lose all respect.

I kind of lean towards an ideal of not taking for granted that everything I see touch smell hear or taste really happened. The mind can deceive. All the better when it does.

It's really strange that the existence of god seems a more relevant question to people than the existence of oneself and the world. When I work out whether I and the world I sense around me really exists, then I may consider less important questions.

You are becoming very existentialist Houlley.

A poor edit on my previous post, it should have read "persona non grata" not 'gratis' which of course is a whole different meaning.

I am happy for all manner of personal belief systems as long as they don't intrude or do harm. It is the power mongers that are the flies in the ointment which is perhaps why there are some who have such a problem or resistance to secularism.

>'Just consult our own opinion again in a circle?'

>>That actually works quite well for me. It's also surprisingly popular.

LOL yeah; you can say that again.

>'Pythagoras’s theorem can be objectively proved'

>>"What's proof?"

What about this: "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement"?: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0666290#m_en_gb0666290

>"It is consistent in the boundaries it exists in. Not sure that counts if the boundaries are not proven."
I can't actually see the problem here. I understand geometry originated from measuring land for conveyancing and taxation purposes. Why couldn't we just draw a right-angled triangle on the ground, and define that as providing our boundaries?

>"Then again that guy reckoned ... he could see in 4 dimensions."

Yeah I met a guy once who reckoned he could think in 9 dimensions. I couldn't even understand what he was talking about. But since he joined a religious order "so as to get women", he couldn't be all that insane.

Peter Hume,
you are prejudiced against anything I say, so really no point.. however the subject interests me.

To begin with, empiricism is also based on metaphysics, but that's another topic.
What I was saying, in response to Dave Frampton's excellent comment, is that discrete, objectively derived, "evidence" is also highly dubious when alienated from its context. How far its context extends remains controversial. I also alluded to the fact that the discrete evidence is inevitably and reciprocally corrupted by that context. Scientists and philosophers are well aware of these difficulties. My more important point, in the context of the emotionality of belief, is that the social detachment (asceticism?) associated with the analytic tradition is questionable in at least three ways, a) it devalues the mysterious capacity humans have demonstrated for fathoming manifestations of reality intuitively, imaginatively, serendipitously, aesthetically and contextually. Examples are legion, but Hegel and Crick, and yes, Marx, are a few. And b, even more important, the detachment employed by our analytic priests is irresponsibly subservient to the powers that be. Scientific production is non-aspirational (except when it is openly politically aligned, though as I say it is aligned by default. If our societies were ethical and self-sufficient our science would follow suit), and thus its endeavours are driven by demand, without recourse to ethics (ethical considerations are socially imposed or ignored) Which is why some wits call it "liberal-rationalism". Ironically, we look to science to fix AGW, but it also facilitated it. Untrammelled and essentially random, scientific advance constitutes a dire threat to all life. And c) scientific rationalism is also a social phenomenon, a church that cultivates a kind of grand nihilism that despises the "irrational" nature of social consciousness--scientific self-loathing. Social being, life as we know it, human truths, are abandoned by the purists in favour of a vaunted sterility; a privileged aloofness granted by an idle culture.

Squeers did you swallow a dictionary. You remind me of the pontificator (examinator).

BTW, there is a new trend that's sweeping the nation; Sentences and paragraphs. It's not too late to get on board.

'it devalues the mysterious capacity humans have demonstrated for fathoming manifestations of reality intuitively'

Nah. There's nothing mysterious about that. How does it de-value anything? You should read a book called blink. It's about so-called intuition and how it's just as valuable as analytical thought.

Intuition is basically analytical thought done in the mind without any 'logging', kind of in the sub-conscious, so the conscious doesn't get all the boring details. It's why drugs bring one to a higher plain, they let this state of consciousness do it's thing. Epiphanies abound, but are not 'valued' or appreciated when back in the sober state, as there is too much conscious static, and because of the stigma of drug use.

And my intuition tells me you are more full of it than me. I tend to agree even with my analytical mind.

Squeers
Well I think it’s unfair to say I’m prejudiced against anything you say when I have only recently explicitly agreed with you; besides it’s mind-reading.

“What I was saying… is that discrete, objectively derived, "evidence" is also highly dubious when alienated from its context.

Wny? How? Against what standard?

Why can’t we abstract objective truths? Why can’t we validly say “These 2 apples + those 2 apples=4 apples”?

“I also alluded to the fact that the discrete evidence is inevitably and reciprocally corrupted by that context.

What’s that supposed to mean? What is the standard of truth against which you are determining what is “dubious” and what is “corrupted”?

“Scientists and philosophers are well aware of these difficulties.”

I’m asking *you* to explain them.

“ My more important point… that the social detachment (asceticism?) associated with the analytic tradition is questionable in at least three ways,

Well I’m in the analytic tradition but no-one ever accused me of asceticism.

a) it devalues the mysterious capacity humans have demonstrated for fathoming manifestations of reality intuitively, imaginatively, serendipitously, aesthetically and contextually.

No it doesn’t. Just because I can analyse a sunset in terms of dust particles and light spectrum, does not in the least detract from my ability to appreciate its beauty.

“Examples are legion, but Hegel and Crick, and yes, Marx, are a few.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh ye-es (wipes tear of mirth from eye) … there’s that great perspicacity of Marx again. He was such a genius at economics BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA! (slaps thigh with hilarity)

“And b, even more important, the detachment employed by our analytic priests is irresponsibly subservient to the powers that be.”

That's an argument against irresponsible subservience to the powers that be, not against analytical objectivity.

But want I want to know is, if you deny the possibility of objective knowledge, how do you know you're not being more irresponsibly subservient to the powers that be?

(cont)
“Scientific production is non-aspirational (except when it is openly politically aligned, though as I say it is aligned by default. If our societies were ethical and self-sufficient our science would follow suit), and thus its endeavours are driven by demand, without recourse to ethics (ethical considerations are socially imposed or ignored) “

Hang on. You still haven’t shown any objective basis on which your ethics could be founded.

“and c) scientific rationalism is also a social phenomenon,..."

that doesn't mean it's incapable of objectivity

"a church"
you haven't established that

"that cultivates a kind of grand nihilism that despises the "irrational" nature of social consciousness--scientific self-loathing.”

What do you mean the “irrational nature of social consciousness”? What’s that supposed to mean?

Please define objectivity.

Why is there no objectivity per se?

The argument is this: if the laws of physics apply to human action, then the principles of logic do too. For example, a person can't be in two places at the same time. A person's time on earth is limited. A person's actions always consist of preferring A to B.

These propositions follow from our physical nature. And that being so, their logical consequences follow, and from these logical consequences, we can derive universally valid propositions of fact that are objectively true and objectively demonstrable. Therefore we economic and social science is possible. (You have *denied* it, but you haven't *disproved* it.)

The fact that empiricists and positivist social science employ a wrong methodology, and that all knowledge may be hired for the wrong ends, does not disprove that proposition of pure theory.

Hrrmph.

Houellebecq,
you're a wit among dunces and a dunce among wits. Being a dunce myself, however, I can relate to your sense of humour. But sometimes I get serious.

Peter Hume,
you are a tedious fellow.
I'm sorry but I'm not here to educate you in rudimentary philosophical aporia. I've said nothing that isn't (un)common knowledge on the philosophical front, though my extrapolations are my own. It must be dreadfully dull living with such complacency day in and out?
So how about you go away and do some homework, and when you know your philosophical times table we can chat..

I wonder sometimes, if these drought ridden dust-bowl people can ever find there way beyond the farm gates.......lol.....its like watching a re-run from the eighties, with all members of the scripts repeating the same out of date thinkings as you would except:) I mean the ( god is not what you think it is ) is in-fact reportedly well understood by many of top sciences, in being one has to think higher or at least look at the evidences, but NO! Belief is something only others can understand, depending on ones evolutionary advances, given that the type of DNA ones supply's with, can make all the differences:)

Now, if some still needs a pocket-book supporter, this will thus conclude the following sentence.

Humans can be convinced of absolutely anything....... except me of course:) Anything Religious Concerning A Deity Will Always cause a sensation (: to put it lightly :) and one of the cruelness mind inflictions ever to be put on man as a way of controlling one-another.

1 . If this is wrong, then how come Iam as happy as pig in the, and it dont cost me a cent?

2 . How come billions of others needs not but themselves for joy?

3 . Why is science and truth of natural-life, so completing.....and other religion.....and in-clueds the towel-heads.

4 . Why do we live in peace, while religions make harm?

LEAP

Squeers
The problem is that, according to your theory, there’s no such thing as knowable objective reality, it’s just whatever people think it is. So when someone challenges your garbled third-hand Marxist balderdash with a view to disproving it, you just retreat into denying that there’s any such possibility as your arguments being rationally disproved. But of course if the philosophic truths you contend for are as basic as you claim, you should have no trouble making your case. But if they're true, there’s also no possibility of your utterances being meaningful either – and certainly no justification for any of the re-distributionist policies you advocate

Peter Hume,

you misrepresent everything I say. Like it or not there is ultimately no reality objectively available and fully disclosed to us, but I've never said and don't say that "it’s just whatever people think it is"; that would be relativism and idealism, which I don't condone.
The only reality we need concern ourselves with, for practical purposes, is this one, and it needs urgent attention.
I would be delighted for you to challenge "with an eye to disproving" what I say, but first you have to understand it, and second, to paraphrase your good self, you'll need more than ad hominem.

What is the source of moral authority?

It has to be outside of any human influence. It can not be a great scientist, a sage, or in the worst case, a dictator.

Any thoughtful person would find the question very difficult, or perhaps impossible to answer. It is something that can be referred to as the "eternal quest".

Nevertheless, we as humans always seek patterns of undserstanding, or patterns of order, - as long as one never assumes that the the "patterns of order" is final, or that one has found it.

Squeers
It’s not that I’m misrepresenting you, it’s that what you’re saying is self-contradictory, and logically false.

On the one hand you say “There is no objectivity per se.” But on the other hand you deny that "it [i.e. reality]’s just whatever people think it is".

Well what is it then? Is anything capable of objective proof, or not?

Without answering this, you have no ground to assert that my support of voluntary society is “faith”-based, since you haven’t eliminated the possibility that I can logically disprove the objections to freedom, and arguments in support of statist interventions, on their own terms. It is a mere back-bite to accuse me of irrational method when I am ready to prove my theory and disprove yours, and the only thing stopping me is that you consistently evade answering how your own socialist and statist assertions could be objectively proved or disproved.

For example in a prior post you asserted that “unregulated capitalism” caused the Great Depression and GFC. I pointed out that both a) the money supply and b) interest rates were controlled by governments who, with hundreds of other bureaucracies regulating money and finance intend to, and do, override the operations of free-market capitalism, *hence objectively disproving your assertion as a matter of fact*. And you, instead of admitting that you were wrong and re-thinking your theory about power and injustice, merely retreat into asserting that there is no possibility of objective proof or disproof. But then you come out somewhere else another time criticising capitalism, on the basis of statistics!

Talk about the emotionality of belief. You haven’t established your case against capitalism or for the state. I’m only asking you to take your own advice: to subject your own anti-freedom and pro-state opinion “to far greater scrutiny than it commonly is”; and what I get is a reply of mind-reading, misrepresentation (I believe in “divine providence”), evasion (can we objectively prove something or not),and appeal to absent authorities on the basis that you don’t condescend to details. To quote Marx in support of unspecified epistemological propositions is simply laughable.

(cont.)
Isn’t it true that the reason you keep evading answering my question whether we can objectively prove Pythagoras’s theorem, is that you don’t want to answer it, because you know that if you do, it will prove you wrong in the theory of knowledge that you assert, and pave the way for me to prove you wrong in your theory of economics and society?

So no further evasions or waffle please - is anything capable of objective proof, or not?

Can we validly say “These 2 apples and those 2 apples = 4 apples?” or "An individual's time on earth is limited?" or "Physical laws impose certain unavoidable limits on human action."
If not, why not?

Istvan

Why does the source of moral authority have to be “outside of any human influence”? How could it be?

“… as long as one never assumes that the "patterns of order" is final, or that one has found it.”

So does that mean I can punch you on the nose because we could never finally eliminate the possibility that doing so would be wrong?

That’s not right, is it?

The source of moral authority must be everyone's own self-ownership. You have a right to the scarce resources that comprise your physical body. This is axiomatic because if one were to deny it - “No I don’t! I don’t have a right to the possession and control of my own physical body!” then he would be admitting that he is not qualified to enter into the discussion. Thus by the very fact of participating in argumentation with other human beings, one implicitly necessarily admits the moral first principle of self-ownership, on which all consequential discussion of morality necessarily follows.

Peter Hume,
your last two posts, according to form, are unrepresentative swill, that is they do not represent anything I've said, they only take it out of context and misrepresent.
Anybody who bothers to read what I've said closely, and has a modicum of intellectual honesty, would see that.
In any case I have already responded to your persistent importunity in spades, the latest being, "there is ultimately no reality objectively available and fully disclosed to us". This is the merest commonplace!
Otherwise, I'm not going to respond to your latest pack of lies.

Squeers
Your personal attack on me is irrelevant.

Certainly doesn’t look like your taking your own advice: “we should not cherish our opinions, but treat them with disdain and welcome criticism”.
1. You’re not welcoming criticism are you? You actively flee from rational disproof, and taking refuge in irrelevant personal attack, and a welter of logical fallacies.

Obviously I have not misrepresented you where I have quoted you directly.

If you are going to say it’s a lie, you need to identify what was a lie and why; not just throw this dust in my face.

You have responded in spades, but the spades have been full of bullsh!t. For example:
"there is ultimately no reality objectively available and fully disclosed to us".

That is an assertion not a proof.
2. So? Can we say that physical laws impose limits on human action?
3. Or not?”

“discrete, objectively derived, "evidence" is also highly dubious when alienated from its context.”
4. What’s that supposed to mean?
5. Against what standard do you judge what is dubious?
6. Can we validly say “These 2 apples + those 2 apples = 4 apples” and if not, why not?

7. Please define objectivity?
8. Why is there no objectivity per se?
9. Can Pythagoras theorem be proved and if so why? Or not, and if not, why not?
10. if you deny the possibility of objective knowledge, how do you know you're not being more irresponsibly subservient to the powers that be?
11. Is anything capable of objective proof, or not?

Don't accuse me of misrepresenting you - represent yourself. Address the issues. But not in irrelevant drivel. Actually join issue and let's see if you can hold up your end of the arguments you rely on to criticise capitalism, without falling into self-contradiction, error of fact, or error of logic. And no, mere personal accusations and attributing bad faith to me doesn't cut it.

Peter,

This is all rather fascinating.

I looked up objectivity and one definition was "existing independently of perception or an individual's conception".

So how can we objectively define our reality if we can't move beyond it to do so?

Poirot
Yes it is rather fascinating, and that’s a good question.

The issue goes to the very heart of logic and the possibility of scientific method.

On the one hand if we say logic and objectivity are possible, we immediately run into the problem that there is no-one to represent that proposition but the human actor saying so, and anyone who agrees, all of which requires individual subjective opinion.

On the other, if we say that objectivity is not possible because it would always require individual interpretation, we are saying that there could be no mathematical proof, no logical proof, and for that matter no possibility of rational human communication.

You might say 2 + 2 apples = 4 apples, but “No” I might say “*I* think it means 2,868 apples”. And we would all have to agree that that is equally valid. But no we wouldn’t either, because there would be no rules of logic to require us to conclude anything. We would be confronted with a senseless jumble.

Similarly, I could reason “Bees make honey. And cows moo. Therefore cows mooing makes sky-scrapers” – a logical non sequitur. And everyone would have to say “Well that’s true for you. And for me. But it might not be for me. Or for you either”.

But we don’t do that. Indeed everyone by participating in discourse, shows that he intrinsically and necessarily accepts certain propositions e.g. that the person spoken to is capable of being persuaded by reason, that is, by a demonstration of objectively necessary relations as to cause and effect.

The solution to the problem must be that, for an individual to assert the possibility of objectivity, *does* entail the presence of individual opinion, but that that, of itself, does not prove that objectivity is impossible. It means that an opinion can be either objectively correct or incorrect at the same time as it is necessarily subjective. Thus the truth of the assertion does not *depend* for it’s truth on the assertor’s individual subjective opinion, but on a reality that is independent of it, thus solving the problem.

This is to do no more than recognise the insight that, after one dies, the world continues spinning on its course. The existence of objective reality does not *depend* on the subjective opinion that remarks it.

So the person denying the possibility of objectivity is in an impossible position, since if true, it precludes his own participation in the discourse; else why does he use reason in at attempt to persuade?

But the person affirming objectivity merely has to affirm that the world has an objective existence independent of the fact that he also happens to live in it; and to note that everyone implicitly affirms the proposition by participating in verbal communication.

However most people denying objectivity don’t deny it for example, in physics for the law of gravitation, nor or in mechanics, for example, when they drive to the shop. They do it, like Squeers, inconsistently, asserting statistics and historical narratives when it suits his purposes, but then when Peter Hume challenges his fallacious claims about capitalism, and offers to disprove them, he flees to a refuge in invincible ignorance, indulging a denial of the very possibility of objective, and therefore of logical proof and disproof.

If objectivity is possible, then not only natural science, but social science must be possible; because reality impose limits on human action that are logically knowable. (This means Squeers neo-Marxist claims are susceptible of objective proof or disproof – all questions of social science do not resolve to mere “ideology”.) The epistemological problem of social science then becomes, what is the correct method for arriving at objective knowledge about data which all derive from subjective human purposes?

Peter Hume
I can’t believe that you want things spelled out.
It’s horses for courses. Obviously in our dealings with the world we have to ignore the inherent aporia that attends our logic. What you are arguing in your post to Poirot can only be ultimately proved in the realist mode, and for the sake of argument and practicality we all agree to suspend disbelief and adhere to our indigenous logic.
If you look at the article to this thread you’ll note that it is not interested in the realist mode—but hang on, well actually it is, it’s trying to belittle people into the realist mode, to pragmatise their beliefs. It’s a load of condescending tosh, actually—it wants to irrationalise belief and plays all the PC games, but comes out on top itself, ie rational. “Religions arise when the teachings of charismatic individuals are later codified by their followers”; isn’t this what’s going on with Dawkins and Hitchens? Does anyone suppose there’s not an ideological agenda being cooked up there, between Ditchkins? They’re lap-dogs to the system, and in the realist mode they’re as hooked on belief as irrational believers!
The author of the article tells us that “William James, the great American philosopher of religion, made a useful distinction between healthy-minded and sick-souled religiousness.
Let's not harm the healthy minded in our attempt to cure the sick-souled”
I notice there are no quotation marks around this, presumably a paraphrase? Having actually read James’s “Varieties of Religious Experience”, I find it hard to reconcile such a hard-nosed sentiment with James, a noted “anti-foundationalist”—remember that term, Peter?
Anyway, my point is that what I’ve said above about reality, objectivity and belief is outside human logical constructiveness, transcendent, philosophy devoid of practice—sheer indulgence, but (anti)foundational for all that. I’m not defending populist religion of course, which is also part of the realist paradigm, I’m just saying that liberal rationalism is little different; it’s just fashionable.
The modern realist paradigm is based on Cartesian dualism and Humean suspension of disbelief.
They knew how to think in those days!

Reason is a hard taskmaster.
I think that in modern man, ideas of reality are probably far more challenging that, say, for those of a medieval peasant who derived his ideas of reality from his everyday world.
His was a world where everything was seemingly apparent. Although he was probably illiterate, he could listen to sermons and "read" stained-glass windows. His work-a-day world was punctuated by "holy-days" and festivals further immersing him in a religious context - these were in turn tied to seasonal prerogatives...everything seemed to connect.
He wouldn't have considered searching for an objective truth or reality as he assumed he was in possession of it.

Meredith Doig says: "Let's not harm the healthy minded in our attempt to cure the sick souled."

Ivan Illich put it another way, writing on traditional societies:

"Traditional society was more like a set of concentric circles of meaningful structures, while modern man must learn how to find meaning of many structures to which he is only marginally related. In the village, language and architecture and work and religion and family customs were consistent with one another, mutually explanatory and reinforcing. to grow into one implied a growth into others."

Reality is subjective to more than just the human condition - a "healthy mind" is likely to be the outcome of a harmoniously structure life

Squeers
“I can’t believe that you want things spelled out.”

I can’t believe that you think your last post clarified anything.

“They knew how to think in those days!

I’m quite sure Renee Descartes and David Hume didn’t become famous as thinkers by assuming in their premises what they had to prove in their conclusion, which is all you have done – when you weren’t contradicting yourself that is.

All
Squeers is just trying to have a bet each way.

On the one hand he denies that there can be “objectivity per se” but on the other hand he says we can use “indigenous logic”, whatever that means. (As a teenager some Aboriginal acquaintances took me hunting. When they whacked a possum around the head with a club presumably they were using indigenous logic. It’s the kind that really works.)

Squeers blows hot and cold in the same breath. He says that “obviously” to be “practical” we have to “suspend disbelief” and use “realist mode”. So, there is objectivity apparently, or rather, obviously.

But then he says that “liberal rationalism” is little different from “populist religion”. So in other words, there’s only subjective belief again. Squeers can assert the government can make the ocean into lemonade, and this belief cannot be objectively disproved; only a “lap-dog to the system” (capitalist running dog?) could deny it.

According to Squeers' theory, there’s liberal rationalism, and then there’s other kinds of rationalism. The logical structure of the human mind is different for different economic classes or groups or races apparently. But this is just a re-run of the Marxian idea of “ideology”, by which theory does not, and cannot identify objective truth - it is merely a mask for the selfish interests of a particular class. Only the Marxians are capable of objectively understanding that!

But no-one will ever explain in detail what kind of logic is peculiar to each group. Squeers won’t explain when and how a non-liberal who joins the ranks of liberals changes his non-liberal mind into a liberal mind.

But since objectivity is possible otherwise Squeers wouldn’t be trying to use reason to communicate; since socialism has been shown to be impossible in theory, let alone in practice: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1060; since Squeers persists in advocating state economic interventions and condemning the only moral and practical alternative, namely the private ownership of the means of production; and since he cannot rationally establish the case for socialism or refute the case for capitalism, therefore Squeers' intellectual approach is indistinguishable from that of religion – invincible credulity. This is in contradistinction to the *rational* defence of personal and economic liberty – capitalism - that he opposes. Being unable to refute the arguments against him, he resorts to denying the very possibility of reason – reserving only to himself enough supply to keep trotting out his anti-reason and anti-freedom beliefs.

Peter Hume,
I don't know how to respond to you other than to say that your latest efforts continue to distort and misrepresent what I've said. I've said nothing that isn't philosophically valid and up to date.
Much as I'd love to read the quaint old text you provide the link for, I don't have the time, though you might like to look at this much shorter article provided by Poirot in another thread: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/
It directly contradicts the neoliberalism you support, and the historian's not a Marxist.
Btw, I have not and do not conflate the problem of objectivity with ideology.

Squeers

You’re still blowing hot and cold on the central question of whether anyone can logically disprove your economic theories, on the one hand saying “obviously” we can use logic, and on the other, saying it might be “liberal rationalism” to attempt it.

That is *not* a philosophically valid response, it’s evasion and self-contradiction.

(How does liberal rationalism differ from non-liberal-rationalism?)

The article does not contradict the freedom I support (what’s neolliberalism? – you’ve never defined it). It merely shows that, like you, the author begs all the questions and is confused about the economics. He identifies Mises and Hayek as grandfathers of the Chicago school of economics – they are not. They are leading figures of the Austrian school of economics. (The Chicago school advocates a central role for government in “managing” the economy. The Austrian school logically proves that interventionism causes the social problems that your economic confusion blames on capitalism.)

American society has never been as intensively and extensively regulated, and government has never been as big, and socialist, as it is today. Fully fifty percent of the nation’s product is hoovered up the snout of government and *all* of it is spent on forcing prices to different levels. The interventionist argument is that this interventionism will make essential goods and services cheaper, and promote social harmony. The Austrian argument is that this will produce crony corporate capitalism and a slide towards fascism while disadvantaging the poorest.

Now. Which theory has more explaining power?

What bothers me is that you don’t – as an honest opponent would do – represent the Austrian arguments and then refute them. You just pretend that they don’t exist, even after referred to them.

The point is, to persist in believing a theory when there are reasons to think is wrong, to flee from disproof, and just keep trotting out the same old slogans and refuted arguments, is the intellectual hallmark of *religions*, your intellectual bedfellows.

So – can your theories be logically disproved, or not? Then please answer the specific questions I’ve asked you and stop evading.

Dear Dr Meredith Doig, let me try and get this straight.

You claim to be rational, and claim to be interested in rational dialogue with others.

You then accuse a friend of being dishonest (for no apparent reason) and then wonder why you suffer breakdown in your communication. 
  
I'll give you a tip.  Meaningful discussion starts with a belief that the other person deserves certain levels of courtesy and respect. When you accuse someone of dishonesty, any meaningful discussion is threatened because of the implied failure of trust. Any subsequent gesture or remark from that person, by defintion, becomes suspect, and meaningful communication will cease.

This has nothing to do with religion versus non-religion. Both those of faith and those of no faith are capable of displaying reason.

Yet it comes as no surprise that anyone who upholds Christopher Hitchens as being particularly rational should need elements of basic reason and common courtesy explained to them.  

Dr Doig,
I'm the one gobsmacked. Have a listen to youself.

 "Anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest".

You insult your friend and then write an article about their emotional reaction. At no point did you ever consider that what you said may have been a little over the top.

I kind of agree with you that Christians, non believers and others can work better towards achieving meaningful and rational dialogue. But to claim the high ground of rationality is not what you've evidenced in this case, No, quite the opposite.

I was born in South Africa where it said that there are only three topics of conversation: sport, politics, and religion. When we came to Australia we found that two of those three were unacceptable in polite discussion. I agree that is a pity.

In my experience, Christians generally are more willing than the average person to engage with others in various ways: in articulating their views, in debates and mutually beneficial discussions. I remember in my days at Latrobe University that the Christian groups were strong and participated in the student newspaper and in various issues and debates. I think that tradition there still continues today.

However, I think in the example you've shown above, you should accept some of the blame for having put your foot in your mouth, and maybe learn something going forward.   

Given the incontrovertible nature of the evidence for evolution, perusable at any university library, any argument for special creation is bogus. Creationists are intellectually dishonest.

The literary history of the "bible" ends roughly 1600 years ago, showing great signs of extensive fabrication at that point.
Biblical literalists who do not open discussions acknowledging this are intellectually dishonest.

This leaves a nebulous deism which, if it honestly acknowledges the likely non-involvement of such deity in the emergence of humans, let alone the irrelevance of supposedly religious literature, can hardly constitute a "god" of the type our cultures have conceptualise.

So left only with this literature of human origin, we can imagine it yet contains useful metaphor and allegory for the human condition. An untutored manual in basic psychology perhaps? Still, it is dishonest to claim much more than this for it, historical accuracy for instance.
Even churches that acknowledge the principally metaphorical value of the "bible" don't emphasise this to their flock. Intellectual dishonesty again.

Such dishonesty dilutes and misallocates the respect more proerly accrued to individuals who advance ethics despite the ridiculously hidebound constraints of a merely literary tradition.

Belief in "god" without qualification? Intellectual dishonesty.

Rusty

Rusty,
If you were aiming for irony you might have scored something, but I know you better. I know that you actually believe  what you've written passes for 'argument'. Yet it's name calling at the lowest level. 

Dear Dr Doig, 
Is this what you hoped for in your call for more 'healthy minded' discussion? 

Let us present a nearly hypothetical example:

If a creationist were to present the argument of Hoyle, that an enzyme with a given activity could not arise randomly due the enormous odds against one particular sequence arising, is it not dishonest of this creationist to present such an argument as telling?

"Ah" you *might* say, "that creationist is honestly unaware of counterexamples".

"but" I say, "he has made an assertion whose value lies in presuming some study, some genuine interest in knowing whether the arguiment was valid, which brief study shows it is not, see jack Szostak and so forth."

"but he was honest" you protest,

"only in his ignorance" I reply, "which he dishonestly and arrogantly presentaed as knowledgeability".

"yet still honest"

"but not *intellectually honest* and that is the point"

"that's just name calling"

"*accurate* name calling" I say.

For an example, I ask you yet again for your reference or the name of the teacher you taught you that "expodential" was a valid mathematical term. Even just the greek or latin roots in which such a linguist and mathematician as youself must surely have taken an interest. Else you relly should be silent.

There, that saves time, does it not?

Rusty

We gave the spelling of a word a fair run on the other thread. It was off topic then (so said the OLO moderator). and it's off topic now.

As much as the creation/evolution debate goes, we could start a whole new discussion along those lines if you like, but that would also probably be off topic.

However, inasmuch as it relates to Doig's silly and unnecessary comment that. 'anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest' I would say this:

Deliberately being misleading is dishonesty. 

And complete intolerance of any belief or opinion that differs from one's own is called bigotry. 

And as an *actual example* of a breakdown in personal integrity it was just fine.

You are not to be trusted, as that thread indicated, on so humble a thing as a mathematical term. There are even stories in the Oh-so-precious "bible" about extrapolating such unfaithfulness to greater things.

Further, when you have discussed matters of molecular evolution, you have used phrases such as "it's about information content" when it becomes clear you know nothing about how natural selection influences actual acquisition of novel biochemical activities.

It is most apparant that creationists in particular are grossly and obviously dishonest about matters pertaining to the validity of biological evolution.

Do go read up. The evidence for biological evolution is far more weighty than any for the honesty of biblical compilers.

If your faith is bolstered by false arguments in such a manner, and by disseminating such misinformation, what is that *but* "intellectual dishonesty"?

Rusty

It's your own fault, Dan S Merengue, for a) coming into the discussion so late - what took you so long? - and b) for the somewhat intemperate outburst that announced your arrival.

But this is quite interesting.

>>However, inasmuch as it relates to Doig's silly and unnecessary comment that. 'anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest' I would say this: Deliberately being misleading is dishonesty.<<

First and foremost - indeed, it is the core of the topic in the article - it was not "Doig's silly and unnecessary comment".

It was a quote. Somebody else's words. Which she was careful to package and preface as such:

"In summarising Hitchens's arguments about how 'religion poisons everything', I quoted one of his famously pithy and rather amusing characterisations of religious believers: 'Anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest'."

The fact that you, too, took umbrage at her quotation, and treated it as a personal insult to you and your religion, indicates that you didn't understand any part of the article that she wrote. It was not an apology for quoting Hitchens; it was an observation - quite a sensitive observation, in fact - on how easy it is to upset people who wear their religion on their sleeve.

A point that you have rather neatly underlined.

An alternative view might be that you deliberately misunderstood, or misread, what she wrote, in order to demonstrate once again the depths of your own personal piety.

But that cannot be right, because that would be deceptive. And misleading. And as you told us already, deliberately being misleading is dishonest.

Pericles,
Sorry, I didn't realise you were in charge of setting time limits for closing down discussion on a thread.

Meredith Doig's article conerns emotional as opposed to rational responses (from Christians).  Some choice selections of emotional outbursts elaborating his prejudice against Christians can be found with Rusty above. I hope Dr Doig gets to read them.

The real question (that I think Dr Doig did well to raise) is when will we be able to move forward, grow up, and talk sensibly over these issues? 

It's exactly the same question which I raised in my article published on OLO last year, entitled "Truth is the first casualty of war", subitiled 'The Global Atheist Convention: why won't Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist, publically debate Carl Weiland, creationist?'
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9980&page=0  

Don't be so paranoid, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, Sorry, I didn't realise you were in charge of setting time limits for closing down discussion on a thread.<<

I was simply noting that you had taken four weeks to get around to making a comment, and that when you did, your contribution was somewhat bilious. It was just my way of asking politely "are you feeling ok?"

>>The real question (that I think Dr Doig did well to raise) is when will we be able to move forward, grow up, and talk sensibly over these issues?<<

From the manner in which you mimic the reaction of Dr Doig's friend, I'd guess your own answer would be "not yet".

>>It's exactly the same question which I raised in my article published on OLO last year, entitled "Truth is the first casualty of war"<<

Hardly "exactly the same". But close enough, if you step back and squint. You said at the time:

"Some avenues of enquiry are declared off limits; with some honest questions denounced as unanswerable, invalid, or heaven forbid, unimportant. But these won’t go away until they are properly addressed."

This was, as you remind us, in the context of 'The Global Atheist Convention: why won't Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist, publically debate Carl Weiland, creationist?'

We worked through that one quite extensively back then, and the view was formed that the principal reason was, that there would be insufficient common ground upon which to base an intelligent discussion.

You, quite naturally, disagreed, but it was clear to most that debating "science vs. faith" would be an interesting challenge for the Year Ten Debating Society, but pretty irrelevant to grownups.

To be a creationist, it is necessary to take the writings in the Bible at face value, which effectively disqualifies one from looking at geological evidence with an open mind... "what does this lump of rock tell us?". Having a discussion with a closed mind is, as you well know, pretty fruitless.

But thanks for bringing it up. I had a quick glance through the thread, and found it quite refreshing.

Pericles, I'm curious.

What does this lump of rock tell us?

What does this lump of rock tell us?....lol That what you see, is not what you get:) Oh for times most said, the African lioness/ plus clubs, and all but a few exceptions, has this "emotionality" and whats your point:)

An observation of the natural world will not justify your claims. ( in-fact you make it right )Love is the program, which makes the animal world....Higher....and war and indifference, makes us fools.

Still comes down to your non.

I think love is going to win:)

leap

LEAp

Which lump of rock might that be, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, I'm curious. What does this lump of rock tell us?<<

I can see how you awarded yourself the monicker. Dancing, dancing, all the time dancing...

What does this lump of rock tell us?
 
Which lump?

Pericles, you tell me. It was your idea. It was your rock. You dug it up.

You raised the question.

What does this lump of rock tell us according to Pericles? I was curious to know. Silence so far.

Usually rocks are silent. They have no mouths. All they say is deduced from an interpretation which we put on them. How we perceive or interpret them depends on the philosophical matrix through which we view such matter. 

Our philosophical approach or viewpoint comes first. That will determine how the rock speaks. Philosophy is paramount.

Discussion with a closed mind indeed lends itself to fruitlessness. But where to find the open mind? The truly open minded would attemp to see another perspective or the differing philosophical view rather than cheaply denouncing its adherents as morally deficient.

Very cute, Dan S de Merengue.

>>What does this lump of rock tell us according to Pericles? I was curious to know. Silence so far.<<

The rock in question is a hypothetical rock. It represents a part of this physical world of ours that can be examined, with the objective to determine a) what it is made of, b) how it came to be the form in which it now presents itself, c) how old it is and d) what can it tell us about the world at the time it was formed.

>>Usually rocks are silent. They have no mouths. All they say is deduced from an interpretation which we put on them. How we perceive or interpret them depends on the philosophical matrix through which we view such matter.<<

Quite. So the last thing you need is a conviction that the earth was created in seven days by a pan-dimensional spirit some six thousand years ago.

You would be unable to produce the following:

http://geology.com/press-release/ancient-mantle-rocks/

Instead, you would need to expend all your energies finding alternative explanations for the geochemical evidence that shows us the "region of the Earth's mantle that has largely escaped the billions of years of melting and geological churning that has affected the rest of the planet."

By addressing the piece of rock with an open mind, you are able to arrive at the conclusion that "the lead isotopes in the lava samples... date the reservoir to between 4.55 and 4.45 billion years old", reflecting the weight of evidence, rather than any prejudice.

Your position on geological evidence is interesting.

>>Our philosophical approach or viewpoint comes first. That will determine how the rock speaks. Philosophy is paramount.<<

Not really. You don't need a philosophical viewpoint to conduct electron microprobe analysis of micro-milled rock samples.

http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/8/1449.full

You just do it.

>>The truly open minded would attemp to see another perspective or the differing philosophical view rather than cheaply denouncing its adherents as morally deficient.<<

Agreed, one hundred percent.

But that has nothing to do with the analysis of rocks.

DSM,

Are you describing philosophy, imagination, or psychosis?

Pericles,
I'm glad we can be 100% agreed on something.

SM,
I was aiming more for the former than the latter.