Our common humanity

[Guest Melanie]

See the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and the anthropic principle, for starters.

Ignore what Gavin said about the anthropic principle.  He apparently accepted Richard Dawkins' crackpot interpretation.

No, you read it correctly.  It's not, strictly speaking (and with understatement), the most deductively appealing of arguments.

But it really would S**K if there were really no such thing as right or wrong.  Could you live that way?  I know some people can.  I suspect they're a tiny minority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I used to think Bryan was smart, but the more he writes the more I doubt that.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is pure speculation. It's not evidence of anything except the ability of human beings to conceptualize things we don't understand.

The anthropic principle is based on evidence, but that evidence does not support theism; on the contrary, it's an observation that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that there are things we cannot know, including the ultimate nature of all things, or for that matter whether there is such a thing as an "ultimate" nature.

Gavin offered some of the best posts at this site. Not surprisingly, Bryan wants him ignored because Gavin thoroughly demolished every point Bryan tried to make.

As for right and wrong, it only exists in the context of our lives - the lives of living beings. There is no right or wrong for rocks. They don't care if they get blown to smithereens. That's why moral, ethical and religious systems have no real foundation outside our interests and concerns. Bryan is making the case for humanism without even realizing it.

[Guest Melanie]

Unlike Paul LaClair, I have not invoked God in a tautological formula such that I attempt to evoke the implications for God's existence.

You're being silly.

(1) But any time you want to explain how the implications of being human supply a philosophical basis for morality, I'm eager to hear it.

Try to avoid responses like "It supplies a moral foundation because our common humanity makes us all human."

Baloney--but your unintended irony is impressive.

Note to Melanie:  Check the context and look up "simply."

Ah, no.  If I had said what you claim I've said then I'd be contradicting myself.

(2) I allow that it's possible that morality could be a brute fact in a physicalist universe, but I have yet to see a coherent explanation for how it could be.  In other words, I do not assume that it is impossible.  I simply haven't seen an argument for it that can withstand moderate scrutiny.  Because of the former, I am doubtful that an atheistic account is possible in actuality.

Straw men are rather boring, aren't they?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) This has been explained over and over. As human beings, we have preferences. Among these are life, liberty and happiness. The fact we share these prefernces makes it possible for us to know not only what we desire, but also what others desire as well. Not in specific detail, perhaps, but enough to fashion a system of laws and ethics. And of course we can usually ask others what their particular desires are. The is/ought divide is bridged by a simple value judgment that each person's interests are as important as my own. And why shouldn't they be? They're experiencing pain and pleasure, satisfaction or want, etc., just like I am. That's all you need. That's why a five-year-old can be a more ethical and a more moral person than the most book-learned philosopher. "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten." There really is a lot of truth to it.

(2) To see you must open your eyes.

[Guest Guest]

(1) This has been explained over and over. As human beings, we have preferences. Among these are life, liberty and happiness. The fact we share these prefernces makes it possible for us to know not only what we desire, but also what others desire as well. Not in specific detail, perhaps, but enough to fashion a system of laws and ethics. And of course we can usually ask others what their particular desires are. The is/ought divide is bridged by a simple value judgment that each person's interests are as important as my own. And why shouldn't they be? They're experiencing pain and pleasure, satisfaction or want, etc., just like I am. That's all you need. That's why a five-year-old can be a more ethical and a more moral person than the most book-learned philosopher. "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten." There really is a lot of truth to it.

(2) To see you must open your eyes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My guess is you haven't dealt with many five year olds or blind people.

[Guest Paul]

My guess is you haven't dealt with many five year olds or blind people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tells us something about the five-year-olds in "Guest's" world, but the fact is that many children that age are capable of great things, especially when they're properly brought up.

[Bryan]

(1) This has been explained over and over. As human beings, we have preferences. Among these are life, liberty and happiness.

Also among them are Cheetos, pretzels, and bean burritos.

The fact we share these prefernces makes it possible for us to know not only what we desire, but also what others desire as well.

Didn't you just argue in a vicious circle?

There seem to be two ways to take your statement

P1 If we know we share preferences then we know what others desire.

P2 We know we share preferences

Therefore

C: We know what others desire.

Aren't "we know we share preferences" and "we know what others desire" equivalent statements?

The other possibility (I know of no others):

P1 If we share preferences then we know what others desire.

P2 We share preferences.

Therefore,

C: We know what others desire.

Is the inference at P1 a logical inference? Does it follow that if we do, in fact, share preferences that therefore we know we share preferences?

I say no. Let's say it's true that all humans share a common information system (DNA). Does it follow that therefore all humans know that we share a common information system (DNA)?

Either version is guilty of a shockingly obvious logical fallacy.

How do you explain yourself on this, Melanie?

Not in specific detail, perhaps, but enough to fashion a system of laws and ethics. And of course we can usually ask others what their particular desires are. The is/ought divide is bridged by a simple value judgment that each person's interests are as important as my own.

You appear to be suggesting that faulty reasoning is the key to crossing the is/ought divide.

I could have told you that.

The moral judgment of "each person's interests as important as my own" came out of the blue, with no justification at all. At least, no logical justification:

P1: Other people have desires similar to my own

therefore,

C: each person's interests are as important as my own.

And why shouldn't they be?

In logic, you provide the justification for why they should be. If you seek to stake out your position as the default and leave it to your opponent to disprove your claim, you are guilty of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...c.html#shifting

They're experiencing pain and pleasure, satisfaction or want, etc., just like I am. That's all you need.

It is?

Why isn't the moral system of egoism perfectly compatible with common experiences of pain, pleasure, etc.?

As with Paul, it's as though you've never even thought about this stuff before.

If both systems are compatible with the facts you allege then what makes your system right?

That's why a five-year-old can be a more ethical and a more moral person than the most book-learned philosopher. "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten." There really is a lot of truth to it.

(2) To see you must open your eyes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By your comment about opening one's eyes, do you mean to suggest that you did not just commit a solid handful of embarrassingly obvious fallacies?

[Bryan]

I used to think Bryan was smart, but the more he writes the more I doubt that.

Apparently Melanie doesn't yet wish to consider that she isn't as smart as she thinks she is (assuming that Melanie is female, as for the pronouns).

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is pure speculation.

Even the math?

Would you care to back up your statement with the merest shred of evidence--at least enough to show that you are familiar with the KCA?

It's not evidence of anything except the ability of human beings to conceptualize things we don't understand.

What part of the KCA is evidence of that, IYO?

The anthropic principle is based on evidence, but that evidence does not support theism; on the contrary, it's an observation that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that there are things we cannot know, including the ultimate nature of all things, or for that matter whether there is such a thing as an "ultimate" nature.

Somebody's an expert at arguing with bald assertions. Could Melanie have learned that from Paul?

Question:

Does the anthropic principle support the argument that a universe containing life-as-we-know-it is statistically less likely than a life(-as-we-know-it)less universe?

Gavin offered some of the best posts at this site. Not surprisingly, Bryan wants him ignored because Gavin thoroughly demolished every point Bryan tried to make.

Gavin's five times the opponent that you and Paul present combined, and he utterly embarrassed himself by borrowing Dawkins' view of the anthropic principle (he embarrassed himself in several other areas also--but was unable to match the furious pace of self-humiliation that we see from LaClair and some others).

I'd be delighted to discuss the Dawkins/Gavin misunderstanding of the anthropic principle with anyone, including Gavin, but I don't expect Gavin to return. He doesn't have the requisite ax to grind so he has little motivation to argue with me.

BTW, did you like Gavin's post where he read the Dranger transcript and declared, in effect, NBD?

As for right and wrong, it only exists in the context of our lives - the lives of living beings. There is no right or wrong for rocks.

You seem to be working under the assumption that rocks are not sentient, yet that was precisely what I proposed for the sake of argument (as a reductio ad absurdum).

BTW, how do you know that rocks are not sentient, other than via your impressive ability to fallaciously beg the question?

They don't care if they get blown to smithereens. That's why moral, ethical and religious systems have no real foundation outside our interests and concerns. Bryan is making the case for humanism without even realizing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Melanie is making a case for being classed with Strife in terms of logic (without realizing it).

[Guest Guest]

Tells us something about the five-year-olds in "Guest's" world, but the fact is that many children that age are capable of great things, especially when they're properly brought up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are few creatures more self centered and self absorbed than a small child. Does that sound familiar Paul?

[Guest Frank]

QUOTE

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is pure speculation.

Even the math?

Would you care to back up your statement with the merest shred of evidence--at least enough to show that you are familiar with the KCA?

QUOTE

It's not evidence of anything except the ability of human beings to conceptualize things we don't understand.

What part of the KCA is evidence of that, IYO?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The so-called math is entirely hypothetical. It's nothing more than speculation about the nature of infinity, which of course we know nothing tangible about since we can't observe it.

We don't know that infinity is real. How would we measure and define it? Obviously we can't. All we can do is hypothesize that it does or does not exist. It's a mathematical concept given certain assumptions, some of which we might not even be aware of, but if you try to work with it in any mathematical formula or proof, you really can't - it's mainly just a cipher.

The assumption that infinity MUST exist (since after all, time and space MUST be linear) is one of the many traps of linear thinking. For all those reasons, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is just guesswork and a poor attempt to conceptualize what we cannot understand.

From what I can see, Melanie is a lot smarter than Bryan.

[Guest Frank]

(1) Question:

Does the anthropic principle support the argument that a universe containing life-as-we-know-it is statistically less likely than a life(-as-we-know-it)less universe?

(2) You seem to be working under the assumption that rocks are not sentient, yet that was precisely what I proposed for the sake of argument (as a reductio ad absurdum). 

BTW, how do you know that rocks are not sentient, other than via your impressive ability to fallaciously beg the question?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) Is anyone really so full of hubris as to think they can calculate the statistical likelihood of life in the universe anywhere but here? It's all guesswork. There's no frame of reference for doing it.

(2) Rocks don't have brains and are not even living organisms. That's the scientific answer. The practical answer is that if we must now concern ourselves with the welfare of rocks and by extension every grain of sand on every beach in the world (just for starters), then we literally can't function. Some people may find this kind of speculation interesting and valuable. I think it is neither.

[Guest Frank]

QUOTE(Paul @ Jul 25 2007, 08:41 PM)

Tells us something about the five-year-olds in "Guest's" world, but the fact is that many children that age are capable of great things, especially when they're properly brought up.

There are few creatures more self centered and self absorbed than a small child.  Does that sound familiar Paul?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe in your world all children are like that, but apparently not in Paul's, and not in mine either. Maybe that says something about how you're raising your kids. I think that was Paul's point, but apparently you didn't get it.

There are plenty of self-absorbed adults, too, which is what you're trying to throw at Paul, but in fact that was also his point to you. If you'd stop and think for a few minutes instead of attacking just because you don't agree with us about religion, you might learn something, and you might also find that we're not the demons you think we are. As it is, you really can't learn much of anything.

[Guest Paul]

There are few creatures more self centered and self absorbed than a small child.  Does that sound familiar Paul?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The two former five-year-olds who had my wife Debra for a mother weren't like that. They had their moments of it, as we all do, but they were both very generous and looked outside themselves, considering how their actions might affect others. Debra was very careful to teach them that and she stayed right on top of it, which most parents aren't willing to do. People used to comment on it when we would go places. A religious service, for example, and we'd get compliments about how our kids behaved. One of the great tests was taking them to a restaurant when they were little. (We knew not to take them until Matthew was somewhere between two and three, he being the younger of the two.) We'd walk in and people would give us the "oh no" look, but more often than not, they'd say something very complimentary to us when they or we left. I had the same experience with other people's kids on occasion, smiling all through dinner and then praising the kids to the parents when we left; and then there'd be times when I'd be in a restaurant and the "oh no" look was just the beginning of a spoiled evening. A lot depended on the upbringing.

When our kids made a mistake, we brought it to their attention, and they corrected themselves. Katie was the healer, more capable of self-absorption than Matthew but very empathetic. Matthew was naturally generous and still is.

I've seen a lot of kids as they grew up. My sisters had twelve children all together, and since my sisters are older than I, I watched all of their kids grow.

The lessons I've learned from it are:

(1) Kids give you what you expect of them, so expect the best and a lot of it, walking the fine line against expecting too much or being overbearing about it; it has to be theirs or it's no good.

(2) Spend more time reinforcing the good behavior than punishing the bad; kids (people in general) will become what you focus on.

(3) Be consistent. Good behavior isn't just for church on Sunday.

(4) There's nothing cute about bad behavior, so don't send the message that there is. Why any parent would buy a child a "Brat" doll, for example, is completely beyond me.

There are probably quite a few other lessons, too. The point is to keep your eyes, ears and mind open and keep looking toward the light, not the darkness.

[Bryan]

The so-called math is entirely hypothetical.

At least that sounds like a significant step up from "pure speculation."

It's nothing more than speculation about the nature of infinity, which of course we know nothing tangible about since we can't observe it.

I doubt you're consistent.

I'll bet you accept man-made mathematical models for all manner of things.

You're back to using "speculation" again. I'll bet you're just speculating about that, however, since you haven't observed the nature of the consideration that goes into the math of infinities.

We don't know that infinity is real. How would we measure and define it?

I don't think you understand the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It doesn't require knowing that an infinity is real. On the contrary, it suggests problems with the notion of an infinity in terms of infinite regress.

Obviously we can't. All we can do is hypothesize that it does or does not exist. It's a mathematical concept given certain assumptions, some of which we might not even be aware of, but if you try to work with it in any mathematical formula or proof, you really can't - it's mainly just a cipher.

Your writing hints that you are unaware of the robust work in the mathematics of infinities that has existed for well over 50 years.

The assumption that infinity MUST exist (since after all, time and space MUST be linear) is one of the many traps of linear thinking. For all those reasons, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is just guesswork and a poor attempt to conceptualize what we cannot understand.

From what I can see, Melanie is a lot smarter than Bryan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh. Why is it you think that the KCA relies on an assumption of infinities?

[Bryan]

(1) Is anyone really so full of hubris as to think they can calculate the statistical likelihood of life in the universe anywhere but here? It's all guesswork. There's no frame of reference for doing it.

Probabilistic arguments do not require specific statistical calculations, and even if they did, it is scientists who claim to have done the calculations.

So, we find the skeptics picking and choosing when they wish to invoke science.

(2) Rocks don't have brains and are not even living organisms. That's the scientific answer.

It's a "scientific" answer that fails to address the question, that is. The "science" is based on the assumption that one must have a brain in order to be self-conscious.

What's the scientific evidence supporting the hidden assumption?

The practical answer is that if we must now concern ourselves with the welfare of rocks and by extension every grain of sand on every beach in the world (just for starters), then we literally can't function.

Why not? What would you change about your behavior if rocks were sentient?

Some people may find this kind of speculation interesting and valuable. I think it is neither.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess we won't be looking to you to rescue Paul's arguments from the reduction to absurdity that occurred based on the sentient rock counterexample, then.

Nor are you likely to question your presuppositions.

What a skeptic this guy is!

[Guest Joe]

At least that sounds like a significant step up from "pure speculation." 

I doubt you're consistent.

I'll bet you accept man-made mathematical models for all manner of things.

You're back to using "speculation" again.  I'll bet you're just speculating about that, however, since you haven't observed the nature of the consideration that goes into the math of infinities.

I don't think you understand the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  It doesn't require knowing that an infinity is real.  On the contrary, it suggests problems with the notion of an infinity in terms of infinite regress.

Your writing hints that you are unaware of the robust work in the mathematics of infinities that has existed for well over 50 years.

Heh.  Why is it you think that the KCA relies on an assumption of infinities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To do anything meaningful with this, you'd have to take the concept of infinity, examine its applications (I'd be willing to look at a few examples, Bryan, if you can link to them) and then draw logical conclusions (not just the wishful thinking of the theist) based on those uses. The KCA is not widely accepted at all, and Bryan's argument about it is just babble. Most especially, until you know that infinity is real, anything you try to do with it is just speculation. It's amazing how much time one person can get people to waste refuting his cosmological wishes.

[Guest Frank]

QUOTE

(2) Rocks don't have brains and are not even living organisms. That's the scientific answer.

It's a "scientific" answer that fails to address the question, that is. The "science" is based on the assumption that one must have a brain in order to be self-conscious.

What's the scientific evidence supporting the hidden assumption?

QUOTE

The practical answer is that if we must now concern ourselves with the welfare of rocks and by extension every grain of sand on every beach in the world (just for starters), then we literally can't function.

Why not? What would you change about your behavior if rocks were sentient?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If rocks were sentient, we would have to consider their feelings and their welfare.

Bryan reminds me of some of the hardest-assed atheists I know, who insist that consciousness is just an illusion, and everything is material. These are the radical materialists who (try to) think nothing has meaning. (There really isn't much difference between saying nothing has meaning on the one hand, and saying that everything experiences meaning, including rocks on the other.) The point we try to make to these atheistic curmudgeons (not all atheists are curmudgeons, I hasten to add) is that they can try to conceptualize meaning out of everything, but it's rather revealing that they get angry arguing with people about what they claim is meaningless. If it's meaningless, why does it anger them?!

The other point, equally applicable to people like Bryan, is that we can't live from a belief that rocks are sentient. If you try to live that way, we'd have to say the same thing about every material object we encounter. We couldn't walk on the ground because we might cause it pain and we breathe the air because we might be imprisoning the air molecules in our bodies and we couldn't sit in chairs because the chairs might not like the smell of our behinds. If we had solid evidence that slabs of stone and air and chairs can feel and think, then we'd have to adjust ourselves accordingly, but we don't.

Philosophy has its uses. This is not among them.

[Bryan]

To do anything meaningful with this, you'd have to take the concept of infinity, examine its applications (I'd be willing to look at a few examples, Bryan, if you can link to them) and then draw logical conclusions (not just the wishful thinking of the theist) based on those uses. The KCA is not widely accepted at all, and Bryan's argument about it is just babble. Most especially, until you know that infinity is real, anything you try to do with it is just speculation. It's amazing how much time one person can get people to waste refuting his cosmological wishes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Instead of providing a critique that suggests that he understands the KCA, Joe offers that the KCA isn't widely accepted. True enough, since the KCA isn't widely known in the first place.

I suppose it couldn't be a good argument, in that case.

[Bryan]

If rocks were sentient, we would have to consider their feelings and their welfare.

Why?

You can't even answer definitively that they aren't sentient. The argument seems to amount to Rocks are not sentient because we are not concerned about their welfare. If they were sentient then we'd be concerned about their welfare.

Bryan reminds me of some of the hardest-assed atheists I know, who insist that consciousness is just an illusion, and everything is material. These are the radical materialists who (try to) think nothing has meaning. (There really isn't much difference between saying nothing has meaning on the one hand, and saying that everything experiences meaning, including rocks on the other.)

Oops! Sounds like yet another careless admission that "universal values" aren't universal.

Apparently Frank has trouble differentiating between a statement presented as true for the sake of argument and a statement expected to be taken as true in fact.

That's kind of pathetic ... without the "kind of."

The point we try to make to these atheistic curmudgeons (not all atheists are curmudgeons, I hasten to add) is that they can try to conceptualize meaning out of everything, but it's rather revealing that they get angry arguing with people about what they claim is meaningless. If it's meaningless, why does it anger them?!

It seems simpler, to me, to point out that saying that everything is meaningless is pointless unless "everything is meaningless" has meaning.

You know what would impress me? If Frank could find an analogous way to attack one of my arguments (not just a straw man of his own construction) in a manner analogous to his example.

That would impress me.

The other point, equally applicable to people like Bryan,

(except that Frank will never dream up a legitimate example in support of his claim)

is that we can't live from a belief that rocks are sentient.

Leaving aside the fact that sentient rocks were supposed for the sake of argument, where's the support for the claim?

If you try to live that way, we'd have to say the same thing about every material object we encounter.

Okay, so why can't we live as though every atom (and every component of every atom) is sentient?

We couldn't walk on the ground because we might cause it pain and we breathe the air because we might be imprisoning the air molecules in our bodies and we couldn't sit in chairs because the chairs might not like the smell of our behinds.

1) You don't know with epistemic certainty that rocks are not sentient, which entails that you might be causing rocks pain when you walk on the ground--yet I assume you do so anyway?

2) Sentience does not necessarily entail an ability to feel pain (some humans have diseases that prevent them from feeling pain--are they therefore not sentient?).

If Frank judges based on the possibility that sentient rocks feel pain, then why isn't his judgment similar based on his uncertainty that rocks lack sentience?

Probable answer: Frank will pretend to epistemic certainty that he can by no means justify.

If we had solid evidence that slabs of stone and air and chairs can feel and think, then we'd have to adjust ourselves accordingly, but we don't.

Philosophy has its uses. This is not among them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps one day it will dawn on you that your framework for understanding has been undermined. Perhaps you should just deny it and go along your merry way.

http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html

[Guest Guest]

Great, first Paul and Strifey now two more junior Hawkings are posting; Frank and Melanie.

Forget the screen names, if you are going to post these pompous ramblings you should have to post your verifiable academic and professional credentials.

At least we know that Paul is a lawyer even though he handles personal injury.

[Autonomous]

The Kalam Cosmological argument simply argues that the universe must have a cause. Implying said cause to be God is departing from the argument.

Barrow's teleological application of the Strong anthropic principle is rejected by Brandon Carter, who is one of the first to formulate the principle. Nick Bostrom states quite eloquently that the anthropic principle simply warns against anthropic bias.

Even if we accept that these arguments prove God's existence, neither of these prove that God exists in the particular permutation that you believe in. If the Muslims, Hindus, or pagans are right, the inalienable rights God gives to man change somewhat.

I do not believe in dualism. Now while there are complex arguments put forth in support of a soul separate from the body, the most common one I hear is that it would be horrible if that were the case. Which in no way proves the soul to exist.

Taoism and Buddhism both accept the existence of gods, but the deities are not really central to the core tentets of either religion. If their conceptions of morality are not based on god-given rights, are their moralities now insufficient?

The idea that morality must be based on god-given rights has a fairly extensive set of problems. What if there is no god? How do you know that you have the correct set of rights?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Should I be insulted that Bryan never responded to me?

[Bryan]

The Kalam Cosmological argument simply argues that the universe must have a cause. Implying said cause to be God is departing from the argument.

Rather, it is building on the argument; the Kalam argument is frequently arranged in stages that go beyond what you suggest.

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jbeebe2/kalam.htm

Barrow's teleological application of the Strong anthropic principle is rejected by Brandon Carter, who is one of the first to formulate the principle. Nick Bostrom states quite eloquently that the anthropic principle simply warns against anthropic bias.

And you're going to argue the point by telling me that others object? Arthur G. Islinghausenbergendorfer disagrees with both Carter and Bostrom.

If you understand the objections of the persons you cite, feel free to paraphrase them and offer them in the form of a real objection.

Even if we accept that these arguments prove God's existence, neither of these prove that God exists in the particular permutation that you believe in.

That's why it's "for starters."

"See the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and the anthropic principle, for starters."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=61411

If the Muslims, Hindus, or pagans are right, the inalienable rights God gives to man change somewhat.

Right, but that point simply distracts from the issue of the coherence of a theistic basis for morality.

I do not believe in dualism. Now while there are complex arguments put forth in support of a soul separate from the body, the most common one I hear is that it would be horrible if that were the case. Which in no way proves the soul to exist.

What's the difference between you alive and you dead? You're about the same chemically just before and just after, aren't you?

Taoism and Buddhism both accept the existence of gods, but the deities are not really central to the core tentets of either religion. If their conceptions of morality are not based on god-given rights, are their moralities now insufficient?

Could be. Would you like to change the subject to either of those topics?

The idea that morality must be based on god-given rights has a fairly extensive set of problems. What if there is no god?

Then morality is an illusion. Duh.

How do you know that you have the correct set of rights?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't necessarily know--but at least you can have the possibility that there is a correct set of rights. Lacking a correct set of rights, the effort to find such a set is futile in principle (see "morality is an illusion" above).

Should I be insulted that Bryan never responded to me?

That's entirely up to you, IMHO.

[Guest the Twiddler]

Why?

You can't even answer definitively that they aren't sentient.  The argument seems to amount to Rocks are not sentient because we are not concerned about their welfare.    If they were sentient then we'd be concerned about their welfare.

Oops!  Sounds like yet another careless admission that "universal values" aren't universal.

Apparently Frank has trouble differentiating between a statement presented as true for the sake of argument and a statement expected to be taken as true in fact.

That's kind of pathetic ... without the "kind of."

It seems simpler, to me, to point out that saying that everything is meaningless is pointless unless "everything is meaningless" has meaning.

You know what would impress me?  If Frank could find an analogous way to attack one of my arguments (not just a straw man of his own construction) in a manner analogous to his example.

That would impress me.

(except that Frank will never dream up a legitimate example in support of his claim)

Leaving aside the fact that sentient rocks were supposed for the sake of argument, where's the support for the claim?

Okay, so why can't we live as though every atom (and every component of every atom) is sentient?

1)  You don't know with epistemic certainty that rocks are not sentient, which entails that you might be causing rocks pain when you walk on the ground--yet I assume you do so anyway?

2)  Sentience does not necessarily entail an ability to feel pain (some humans have diseases that prevent them from feeling pain--are they therefore not sentient?).

If Frank judges based on the possibility that sentient rocks feel pain, then why isn't his judgment similar based on his uncertainty that rocks lack sentience?

Probable answer:  Frank will pretend to epistemic certainty that he can by no means justify.

If we had solid evidence that slabs of stone and air and chairs can feel and think, then we'd have to adjust ourselves accordingly, but we don't.

Perhaps one day it will dawn on you that your framework for understanding has been undermined.  Perhaps you should just deny it and go along your merry way.

http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We can say with reasonable assurance (he said tongue-in-cheek) that rocks are not sentient. Why make the argument if you can't support it and don't intend to try? Oh yes, I forget. The other person always has the burden of proof and for them that burden is absolute. Bryan never has the burden of proof no matter how ridiculous his remarks are.

He's not using philosophy for anything except to provide a plausible justification for what he wants to believe. And he can't even do that.

No analogy is needed to dismiss Bryan's foppery. It's easiily done head-on.

[Bern]

There are few creatures more self centered and self absorbed than a small child.  Does that sound familiar Paul?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many that believe this interact with their children in a very rigid manner. They try to control every part of their child's thinking and activity - box their children with rigid controls. And they use fear to control their children - you violate our rules you will be punished by me or the all seeing deity.

Consequently, the child ends up with a unquestioning authoritative personality, rigid and fearful of change. A personality easily manipulated through fear.

This behavioral pattern continues generation after generation.

[Bryan]

We can say with reasonable assurance (he said tongue-in-cheek) that rocks are not sentient.

Kind of like the reasonable assurance we have that maggots spontaneously generate in rotting meat?

Why make the argument if you can't support it and don't intend to try?

What argument do you think I'm making? Or do you not intend to try to suggest that I'm making a particular argument?

Oh yes, I forget. The other person always has the burden of proof and for them that burden is absolute.

For example? Or is that my responsibility?

Bryan never has the burden of proof no matter how ridiculous his remarks are.

I accept the burden of proof often--but you don't seem to have done so in your post, Twiddler.

He's not using philosophy for anything except to provide a plausible justification for what he wants to believe. And he can't even do that.

On the contrary, I have used philosophy to show contradictions in the arguments of others.

No analogy is needed to dismiss Bryan's foppery. It's easiily done head-on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... said Twiddler with an effete wave of his wrist.

[Guest Melanie]

Many that believe this interact with their children in a very rigid manner. They try to control every part of their child's thinking and activity - box their children with rigid controls. And they use fear to control their children - you violate our rules you will be punished by me or the all seeing deity.

Consequently, the child ends up with a unquestioning authoritative personality, rigid and fearful of change. A personality easily manipulated through fear.

This behavioral pattern continues generation after generation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And it sure doesn't sound like Matthew! The kid's a hero to a lot of people. Get used to it because whether you agree with it or not, you're not going to change it.

[Guest Paul]

We don't need a mediator in the form of a story or a personified universe. What we need is our intelligence, our common humanity and a constant devotion to honoring the worth and dignity of all people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, and an accordian. Ran across this poem called "Happiness" from Carl Sandburg today. It says it all.

I asked the professors who teach the meaning of life to tell me what is happiness.

And I went to famous executives who boss the work of thousands of men.

They all shook their heads and gave me a smile as though I was trying to fool with them

And then one Sunday afternoon I wandered out along the Desplaines river

And I saw a crowd of Hungarians under the trees with their women and children and a keg of beer and an accordion.