Not quite sure if I understand the statement in the second letter regarding the fluidity of language. Is this a reference to the documentary hypothesis?
Atheism is a positive belief system which preaches that there is no supernatural, or in other words nature is all there is. See my post http://jewishphilosopher.blogspo...eart-
there.html for more details.
It's also interesting that you want to ban me from your blog. I don't ban anyone from my blog. I wonder if your beliefs are so shaky they can't stand any criticism.
Simon: I took it to mean that language changes meaning through time and so does the Bible's message in the process -- if it was God's message it shouldn't change. But I could have misread it.
Stein: You're more than welcome to post your views. It's the sexist language that I object to. If you can keep that in check, you can stay.
Why so prudish BJ? You remind me a little of Richard Kuklinski, the famous contract killer http://www.crimelibrary.com/noto.../
persona_7.html. He killed literally hundreds, but he was sincerely very sensitive to any promiscuity.
I'm not prudish. I'm a feminist. Discussion about sex is fine (although I would like to keep my blog more or less family friendly); leering remarks to women aren't.
Hope the difference isn't too subtle for you.
Of course, according to your rules, you shouldn't be discussing anything of a sexual nature with women at all, but I won't tell on you if you break your rules. And before you tell me I'm probably a 16-year-old boy: I could just as easily be a 16-year-old girl.
Jacob,
It takes a real asshole to snidely compare people to mass murderers. But that's your MO.
You're not that smart. You are not special. You have a superiority complex because you think you've figured out God's own truth but you're cut of exactly the same cloth as every self-righteous hypocritical loud-mouthed evangelical I've ever come across.
I'm inclined to think that atheism is a belief, if only to distinguish it from agnosticism. The agnostic simply claims not to know (which, I think, is less of a belief), while the atheist affirmatively asserts that there is no God.
It is (and I think both sides could agree on this) impossible to scientifically prove or disprove God's existence. Therefore, perfect knowledge on the subject being impossible in either direction, any opinion on the subject must be a "belief."
while the atheist affirmatively asserts that there is no God.
*************************
This is not true. An Agnostic states that they don't know one way or the other if a God exists. So an Agnostic is someone who still considers that a God or Gods exist.
An Atheist takes a step further saying that since there is absolutely no evidence that God exists or anything supernatural, why even consider God's existence?
Also, if you want to give God certain characteristics, then most, if not all the characteristic you give him, can be disproven. So it depends on which God you are talking about and what exactly this God is supposed to do.
Jacob, I stopped going to your blog because I find you to be an idiot. And I'm being nice.
I should let Richard Dawkins speak for me here.
Great video. Short and to the point.
Saw the Dawkins video. Cute, glib, and utterly inapposite.
The difference between a teapot orbiting the sun and God (well, one difference) is that it really makes no difference if there's a teapot orbiting the sun. The idea of God, however, is a plausible explanation for what put us here and why. God, if we believe in Him, fills in a big gap in our understanding; a flying teapot really adds no value to anything.
Sorry, I really think Dawkins is overplaying his (rather weak) hand on that one.
How does God explain why were are here? How is explained pretty well by science, and one day will fully be explained I'm sure.
Science has filled in quite a lot of holes that were around 2-4 thousand years ago....especially over the last 150 years.
There is no evidence of a teapot, and no evidence of a God. There is no evidence that an invisible man lives under my bed either.
Without evidence, the idea of God is just that, a creation of man's imagination, which gives hope that someone greater can answer why.
Here is Dawkins answer to why we are here.
No one loves me any more. *sniffle*
Come on, this is elementary stuff. Sure, science explains a great deal, but science, by its terms, deals with observable phenomena.
One can follow science all the way back to the big bang (or wherever), but there's always a moment before that. I have no problem with natural selection, either-- but somebody had to put nature there before it started making selections.
Moreover, as to Dawkins' video explaining our "purpose," I watched it, and I want my 23 1/2 minutes back. That was really lame. Our "purpose" is a self-given purpose to plan and think? For what? To invent a better-tasting ice cream? To bring the troops home from Iraq? To make Dawkins rich and famous? Come on-- that's not a purpose, and not a serious answer to the question.
> I took it to mean that language changes meaning through time and so does the Bible's message in the process -- if it was God's message it shouldn't change. But I could have misread it.
I'm not sure what it means either. But I have the same complaint against Chareidim. Their Hashkofas, if not actions, clearly change. So how, could they be bearers of unchanging truth?
but somebody had to put nature there before it started making selections.
*******************
Why? That is like saying somebody had to put God there.
Our "purpose" is a self-given purpose to plan and think? For what? To invent a better-tasting ice cream? To bring the troops home from Iraq? To make Dawkins rich and famous? Come on-- that's not a purpose, and not a serious answer to the question.
************************
We make our own purposes. Our minds evolved to the point they are right now out of necessity to survive hostile environments (ice ages for example, and our highly evolved brains helped us not have any predators...our ability to invent has to do with the evolution of our creativity...this also allows us to make up stuff like Santa Claus, The Cat In the Hat, and God.
> Jacob, I stopped going to your blog because I find you to be an idiot. And I'm being nice.
Very nice, for you, BEAJ 
I haven't read a lot of Dawkins (will watch the videos later) but I'm not 100% sold on him based on what I have seen/read.
Even so, I'm drifting closer and closer to atheism as the days go by. And it doesn't make me feel like my life is meaningless.
To say that somebody had to put the universe there is very different from saying that somebody had to put God there. Science doesn't account for the creation of matter from nothing, nor does it offer a "first cause." Theology posits an infinite God (admittedly, with the problem you mention), but, it seems to me, that this renders your challenge somewhat less apposite.
And "we make our own purposes" may sound nice, but it's pretty clearly not an answer to the question.
Survival would, from a Darwinian perspective, appear to be a "legitimate" purpose. All other purposes, from that perspective, would have to be artificial constructs. It would seem to me, then, that there could be no objective way of evaluating their relative merits beyond their respective capacities to amuse me.
Morgan,
"Theology posits an infinite God (admittedly, with the problem you mention), but, it seems to me, that this renders your challenge somewhat less apposite."
So if the metaphysics of atheology declared that the universe existed forever or caused itself does that solve the problem? Reality does not conform itself to dogmatic fiat.
In other words, just 'cause theology said so does not make it so.
I'm also unclear as to why you figure a "somebody" is more likely than a "something."
"Survival would, from a Darwinian perspective, appear to be a "legitimate" purpose. All other purposes, from that perspective, would have to be artificial constructs. It would seem to me, then, that there could be no objective way of evaluating their relative merits beyond their respective capacities to amuse me."
'Survival' is just an urge we have inherited from our Darwinian origins, if you want to look at it that way. But why should we follow the dictates of some inefficient natural system anymore than we should insist that we cannot use technology since it was artificially created?
Artificial just means "man made" not "fake."
As I see it, pursuit of a greater human society in conjunction with pursuit of the greatness of the indivudal is the goal of morality. And so much of what makes us great - or can make us great - are things artificially created. In fact, the things that make me most proud of being human are things that human beings have made and done and not the powers we have inherited from nature.
"So if the metaphysics of atheology declared that the universe existed forever or caused itself does that solve the problem?"
No. It just redefines God and, in so doing, stops being a very credible form of atheism (if there is such a thing). Metaphysics isn't science, it's philosophy, and (in this case) dangerously close to a variant on religious belief (postulating rather unscientific notions like eternity or creation ex nihilo).
"As I see it, pursuit of a greater human society in conjunction with pursuit of the greatness of the indivudal is the goal of morality."
Rather high-falutin' stuff, Orthoprax. But I have some difficulty distinguishing it from anybody else's high-falutin' stuff.
In the end, Plato, Gandhi, Stalin, Hitler, Jefferson and a host of others all sought a "greater human society." To some extent or another, each relied on exalting one or more individuals to attain his end. I need more than that kind of phrase to evaluate whether a society is great, or a philosophy is any good.
Morgan,
"No. It just redefines God and, in so doing, stops being a very credible form of atheism (if there is such a thing)."
I don't think the words I used referred to God at all.
"Metaphysics isn't science, it's philosophy, and (in this case) dangerously close to a variant on religious belief (postulating rather unscientific notions like eternity or creation ex nihilo)."
Virtually every ontological philosophy has an implied metaphysical philosophy. I don't see why you insist that atheists are not allowed to hold metaphysical beliefs about the world while theists are so permitted.
Further, I don't understand why you are forbidding certain concepts from existing within the scientific lexicon. There have existed and do exist scientific hypotheses regarding the origins of the universe and some do hold assertions akin to metaphysical eternity as well as self-caused creation. There are only so many different logical possibilities that can be understood as the story of the universe's origins.
"In the end, Plato, Gandhi, Stalin, Hitler, Jefferson and a host of others all sought a "greater human society." To some extent or another, each relied on exalting one or more individuals to attain his end."
Indeed, but where they failed was in understanding the basic equality and fairness that must logically be employed for essentially identical objects. All people are essentially the same in this moral sense and therefore ought to be treated similarly.
It is only when you are operating under bias or incorrect data that you can conclude that some minority should be treated fundamentally differently - and therefore unfairly - from the majority.
This, of course, though is only a general principle and there are exceptions - like age or mental handicaps and so on where the minority is truly different and therefore deserves distinct standards.
The point is, and I think I made this clear the first time, that the greater human society is not a moral goal by itself but only makes sense with the complementary goal of the greatness for the individuals who compose society on their own terms. There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and society and pursuing one at the expense of the other ultimately damages both.
Morgan,
The difference between a teapot orbiting the sun and God (well, one difference) is that it really makes no difference if there's a teapot orbiting the sun.
Why does the fact that something is irrelevant make it more or less likely?
The idea of God, however, is a plausible explanation for what put us here and why
No. It is not. Science has already answered all questions as to how we got here with the exception of the first cause. Evolution has already explained how the diversity of life came to be. The only thing that is not explained is what started it all. However, God does not explain that since it only reformulates the question into “Who created God?” “Why” is also irrelevant. Your assumption that there must be a higher purpose is baseless.
One can follow science all the way back to the big bang (or wherever), but there's always a moment before that.
A moment which God does not explain either!
Theology posits an infinite God (admittedly, with the problem you mention), but, it seems to me, that this renders your challenge somewhat less apposite.
What does infinity have to do with this? I am comfortable with the statement that the laws of cause and effect are not always true. This much you have successfully demonstrated. But, that could just as easily be one electron that is somehow exempt from cause and effect as it could be an infinite God. What does infinity have to do with it? Even if you could establish God, you would not have any knowledge about him or any meaning that you seem so interested in.
BJ,
Even so, I'm drifting closer and closer to atheism as the days go by. And it doesn't make me feel like my life is meaningless.
I agree. I don't feel any less meaning. If any, I feel more. I am devoting my life to what I think is good instead of just being to scared to contradict Rabbis who ask my obedience but have no basis to support their claims.
The only thing that bothers me is that I am now mortal. But, that's got nothing to do with meaning. It's just a selfish hedonistic desire to be immoral.
I'm flattered to discover my letter reproduced here. You might enjoy my blog -- it's at http://yashwata.info.
Morgan and Orthoprax:Interesting discussion... philosophy makes my head hurt!
LF: I'm quite happy not to be immortal. I think 100-150 years might be nice though.
Roy: Thanks for visiting. Your blog is interesting, I like the tagline.
Orthoprax:
You don't think the words you used referred to God at all, but you seem willing to allow for the existence of an entity which can create something (a rather impressive something, for that matter) from nothing. You can call it "not God." You can even call it Suzy, if you like. I'm just not sure you can call someone who believes in it an atheist.
You argue: "I don't see why you insist that atheists are not allowed to hold metaphysical beliefs about the world while theists are so permitted."
Funny, I always thought it was the atheists who insisted that! If you want to deny the existence of a higher power, and then postulate the existence of an alternate power that isn't subject to our physical reality but can create that reality from nothing, then you're a better semanticist (and, damn, you are good!) than you are an atheist.
You then argue that (pace Gandhi, Stalin, et al.) "basic equality and fairness ... must logically be employed for essentially identical objects. All people are essentially the same in this moral sense and therefore ought to be treated similarly."
Here, you lost me. What moral sense? Where did that come from? And, if you made it up, why am I subject to it?
"This, of course, though is only a general principle and there are exceptions - like age or mental handicaps and so on where the minority is truly different and therefore deserves distinct standards."
Ah, so if I want to leave granny out on the ice for the polar bears once she can't chew blubber any longer, that's at least as fair as putting her in an expensive old age home in Florida with first-rate tapioca?
Good Shabbos!
Fox:
The fact that something is irrelevant does not, per se, make it more or less likely. However, if something is relevant AND plausible AND offers an explanation for phenomena that would otherwise be unexplained AND has an existence which has been asserted by varying groups in varying situations, it should not be glibly dismissed as the equivalent of an unnecessary irrelevancy. It is not, by any means, a certainty, but it is also not an orbiting teapot.
You argue: "Science has already answered all questions as to how we got here with the exception of the first cause." That's great. And I have all the ingredients for a first rate ham sandwich except the ham.
You are "comfortable with the statement that the laws of cause and effect are not always true." OK, if the precepts of logic can be abandoned at your discretion, the primary difference between you and someone who believes in God is that you're not consistent. If one accepts the idea that the universe is constrained by logic and the laws of physics, then either there's a God who created (and is exempt from) those rules, or we're wrong about the universe.
I dunno. Your call.
Morgan,
"You don't think the words you used referred to God at all, but you seem willing to allow for the existence of an entity which can create something (a rather impressive something, for that matter) from nothing. You can call it "not God." You can even call it Suzy, if you like. I'm just not sure you can call someone who believes in it an atheist."
If your sole required characteristic for an object to be God is that it can create, then that's not much of a requirement at all. Suppose the creative object was a mindless, arbitrary creative force. I don't see why you would call that God - much less God as is understood in any theistic sense.
"Funny, I always thought it was the atheists who insisted that! If you want to deny the existence of a higher power, and then postulate the existence of an alternate power that isn't subject to our physical reality but can create that reality from nothing, then you're a better semanticist (and, damn, you are good!) than you are an atheist."
Personally I don't consider myself an atheist, but that's besides the point. I don't understand how you can be satisfied with calling something 'God' if all it needs to be is some random creative force. I presume you are staking a bigger claim on the term than that!
"Here, you lost me. What moral sense? Where did that come from? And, if you made it up, why am I subject to it?"
Fundamentally, morality is a social phenomenon. It is a value judgement and therefore unjustifiable in other terms. If you do not wish to associate with us and like-minded peoples who want to see society advanced, then you are welcome to leave and form your own community of people who think like you. However, I suspect you won't find many nice people to live with.
"Ah, so if I want to leave granny out on the ice for the polar bears once she can't chew blubber any longer, that's at least as fair as putting her in an expensive old age home in Florida with first-rate tapioca?"
I would say no, but that would be based on different principles than the equal-treatment for equal-subjects that I had gone through previously - although it may still be involved. You can go through innumerable questions of ethics and get into the most specific cases, but all I was getting into here was a general approach to morality.
There is indeed a measurable objective way of understanding moral actions and it revolves around whether or not the action leads to the progression or regression of the individual and/or society. Certainly you can understand how feeding your grandmother to polar bears would be a regression of her individual progress as a person.
Anon,
However, if something is relevant AND plausible AND offers an explanation for phenomena that would otherwise be unexplained AND has an existence which has been asserted by varying groups in varying situations, it should not be glibly dismissed as the equivalent of an unnecessary irrelevancy.
That’s true, but only because you threw in plausible etc. The point is, something that is relevant, plausible, asserted by people is no more likely than something that is irrelevant, plausible, asserted by people etc. The relevance does not help. You want to say you believe because your belief’s have been “asserted by varying groups in varying situations,” fine. But, don’t bring relevance into the picture. It adds nothing.
You are "comfortable with the statement that the laws of cause and effect are not always true." OK, if the precepts of logic can be abandoned at your discretion, the primary difference between you and someone who believes in God is that you're not consistent. If one accepts the idea that the universe is constrained by logic and the laws of physics, then either there's a God who created (and is exempt from) those rules, or we're wrong about the universe.
I think your homiletics dilutes your message. Your point is there's a God who created (and is exempt from) those rules . The rest is irrelevant fluff. Your response to my argument is that it is unfair for me to ask who created God since God does not a creator since he is outside of the universe. I do understand what you are saying. It is plausible. I am not sure what to make of it precisely because I find it so difficult to understand anything regarding these matters. However, I do have two problems with this approach.
1. You posit that God is not bound by cause and effect. Fine. But, once it is possible to posit that about something, why can I not posit that about the universe?
2. Even if I accept your premise, it gives me remarkably little information about God.
Orthoprax:
Who says that my "sole required characteristic for an object to be God is that it can create?" That's a mischaracterization of what I said. The act of creating ex nihilo would seem to presuppose (along with an existence beyond the realm of physics) some sort of will. Hardly the sort of activity that could be engaged in by a "mindless, arbitrary creative force."
As to your contention that "morality is a social phenomenon... a value judgement and therefore unjustifiable in other terms," color me unimpressed. Not surprisingly, I suppose, you follow that with a "love it or leave it" argument (which, frankly, is a bit beneath you). Is there no moral value beyond the whim of a majority?
And I don't understand why you keep insisting on "equal-treatment for equal-subjects" as an absolute value. It's a silly argument, since it presupposes that you and I (or you and anybody) will agree as to what constitutes an equal subject in which case.
You have also claimed that moral actions can be evaluated in terms of whether or not they lead to the "progression or regression of the individual and/or society." Sorry, but your standard flops, even on an obvious case like leaving granny for the polar bears. Who defines progress?
I'm not so sure that granny's quality of life justifies keeping her around (clearly, your morality calls for some kind of evaluation on this issue). Is being alive always better? Is it granny's choice? What if I have to pay? Is it then my choice? What if society has to pay?
In any case, given the high cost of health care to society (with a substantial portion of the costs being concentrated in the last weeks of someone's life), I don't see how you could argue that society as a whole would not be advanced by feeding granny to polar bears. We solve granny's quality of life issues; we reduce the burden of health care costs on taxpayers; we free up another hospital bed; and we even promote the well-being of wildlife, by returning granny to the food chain.
I think that a society needs to believe in values that transcend notions of expedience and majoritarianism.
Morgan,
"Who says that my "sole required characteristic for an object to be God is that it can create?" That's a mischaracterization of what I said."
Actually it isn't. It may not be what you had meant, but it is what you said.
"The act of creating ex nihilo would seem to presuppose (along with an existence beyond the realm of physics) some sort of will."
How do you figure?
"As to your contention that "morality is a social phenomenon... a value judgement and therefore unjustifiable in other terms," color me unimpressed. Not surprisingly, I suppose, you follow that with a "love it or leave it" argument (which, frankly, is a bit beneath you). Is there no moral value beyond the whim of a majority?"
See, now _that_ is a mischaracterization of what I said. It is not the 'whim' of the majority that I said defined morality, but the goals put in place for society and for the individuals that compose society. These goals are not arbitrary, but have been teased out by far-sighted individuals and forged in the furnace of our collective history. Effectively, in no small part, rights come from wrongs.
"And I don't understand why you keep insisting on "equal-treatment for equal-subjects" as an absolute value. It's a silly argument, since it presupposes that you and I (or you and anybody) will agree as to what constitutes an equal subject in which case."
Not at all. It is a most rational argument since it depends on the perspective of rational objectivity. Its weakness is in our individual propensity to err in judgement, but not in principle.
You might as well say, don't make arguments based on logic because people are stupid and they won't understand it anyway. That people fail to understand the logic doesn't detract from the truth of the conclusion.
"Sorry, but your standard flops, even on an obvious case like leaving granny for the polar bears."
I wasn't attempting to justify that by my general approach. There are other factors in play. One being that one can understand that they may one day be in that same position and they would not want to be treated that way. Hence it would be an approach on reason to treat one person one way and another (yourself) a different way if objectively the two individuals are effectively the same.
"I don't see how you could argue that society as a whole would not be advanced by feeding granny to polar bears."
You have consistently failed to appreciate my addition of the value of the individual to the equations here. The individual is as much a value as is the whole of society and therefore sacrificing the individual on the gauntlet of societal progress is unacceptable.
"Actually it isn't. It may not be what you had meant, but it is what you said."
No, it's not. "Creating" and "creating from nothing" are significantly different ideas. An ongoing process can, without interference, give rise to (or "create") anything that forms a part of that process. Creating from nothing requires, by definition, the establishment of a new process, and that really can't be satisfactorily explained by reference to an existing process, or to some accident in a pre-existing system (without getting stuck on the first cause argument).
"It is not the 'whim' of the majority that I said defined morality, but the goals put in place for society and for the individuals that compose society. These goals are not arbitrary, but have been teased out by far-sighted individuals and forged in the furnace of our collective history. Effectively, in no small part, rights come from wrongs."
You talk real pretty, but you pretty much said "whims of the majority." At most, I'll allow that you intended to include the influence of some noteworthy leaders who, for one reason or another, held sway over the Great Unwashed.
"You might as well say, don't make arguments based on logic because people are stupid and they won't understand it anyway. That people fail to understand the logic doesn't detract from the truth of the conclusion."
Sophistry. Logic only works when used on accepted premises. "All Jews are blue, Orthoprax is a Jew, therefore Orthoprax is blue" is perfectly logical. It also happens to be incorrect.
Likewise, your moral notions of equality are just that-- your notions. Other people don't share them, and your conviction that you hold the truth does not establish anything, nor does it distinguish you from anybody else pushing his or her particular brand of revealed theology as the one ticket to salvation.
"You have consistently failed to appreciate my addition of the value of the individual to the equations here. The individual is as much a value as is the whole of society and therefore sacrificing the individual on the gauntlet of societal progress is unacceptable."
Why is the individual a value in your scheme of things? Is that just your preference? What if the far-sighted hommes de lettres who tease out the niceties of our weltanschauung in their collective history furnaces decide that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual? Are they just "wrong?" Your emphasis on the value of the individual (while I agree with it) would be quite a change for many societies.
Morgan,
"No, it's not. "Creating" and "creating from nothing" are significantly different ideas. An ongoing process can, without interference, give rise to (or "create") anything that forms a part of that process. Creating from nothing requires, by definition, the establishment of a new process, and that really can't be satisfactorily explained by reference to an existing process, or to some accident in a pre-existing system (without getting stuck on the first cause argument)."
And? In what way does any of that imply that creation from nothing must be an act of will? That "will" itself has to come from something.
"You talk real pretty, but you pretty much said "whims of the majority.""
And yet they are not whims. It's the difference between painting a Mona Lisa and spilling paint on the floor. It is a non-arbitrary constructive process.
"Sophistry. Logic only works when used on accepted premises. "All Jews are blue, Orthoprax is a Jew, therefore Orthoprax is blue" is perfectly logical. It also happens to be incorrect."
Obviously I meant logically sound. In any case this is tangential.
"Likewise, your moral notions of equality are just that-- your notions. Other people don't share them, and your conviction that you hold the truth does not establish anything, nor does it distinguish you from anybody else pushing his or her particular brand of revealed theology as the one ticket to salvation."
You are incorrect. In what way is it reasonable to treat similar objects dissimilarly? It is not. One then must be acting unreasonably - and therefore wrongly - if one is treating similar people dissimilarly.
"Why is the individual a value in your scheme of things? Is that just your preference? What if the far-sighted hommes de lettres who tease out the niceties of our weltanschauung in their collective history furnaces decide that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual? Are they just "wrong?" Your emphasis on the value of the individual (while I agree with it) would be quite a change for many societies."
The individual is the primary end of moral activity. I could give you a series of reasons for why I value the individual, but inevitably they will suffer from being derivative of other values.
Ultimately, I don't know how one can justify _any_ value.
But what I realize is that since humanity is composed of individual human beings the best deal that all of humanity could hope for is through each individual valuing the other. If you care at all about morality then the individual, the actor of morality, must be valued.
I'd also like to point out that on the issue of values, I do believe that whatever system of values you hold to does itself suffer from the same problems you've put to question mine.
Why do you value your values?
Commenting by HaloScan
