Weird musings. Useful software. Geeking out.

11 Comments »

1. Dhampir Boy wrote,
   

   Very well done. You covered most, if not all, of the objections that came to my mind while watching firefly515’s video. Something I was particularly pleased to hear was your explanation on how the word theory is used differently between its colloquial and scientific applications. It is a distinction that is rarely clarified in debate, it seems, although the distinction is being made by some. Penn Jillette and Teller made the distinction on the Creationism episode of their television show “Bullshit” (season one, episode eight). I also came across a fairly amusing flowchart recently that illustrates how an idea is established as a theory in science, as opposed to how an idea is established as a fact in religion or faith (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/DhampirBoy/Sciencev.png). It is not so kind to the faith side, but I cannot say that it is all that far off the mark.

   Also, in spite of the ridiculous inconsistency of a unicorn being simultaneously invisible and pink, there used to be a belief typical of the East Asian cultures about an invisible “red string of fate” that tethered soul mates to one another. Apparently, no one questioned the redundancy of the invisible string being red.

   Thank you for taking the time to compose your well-constructed argument (with a positive and non-confrontational demeanor!) and sharing it with the rest of us.

   Comment on March 4, 2007 @ 8:37 am

2. ARiktor wrote,
   

   Very well done. Answers all the redundant questions atheists get all of the time. Thanks.

   Comment on March 6, 2007 @ 2:05 am

3. Hannah wrote,
   

   May I start out by saying that you fucking rock… You’ve basically summed up
   in less than 9 minutes what takes me hours to explain to my (hard-core christain)
   friends and family memebers… I’m going to personally make sure that everyone in
   southern Wisconsin watches your videos. I will be incessantly be checking this
   website for more poastings, feel free to email me too.

   Thank you for these incredibly well done (and halarious) videos.

   ~Hannah

   Comment on March 11, 2007 @ 9:06 am

4. Din wrote,
   

   Strong arguments. Nice.

   You somehow highlighted the beauty of our ability to have faith in something that could possibly be bigger (or smaller..or the same size) than ourselves. Though I’m pretty sure that wasn’t your point. :)

   Anyway, have a nice day.

   –Din Din

   Comment on March 15, 2007 @ 3:39 am

5. GMiles wrote,
   

   Ok, i just watch this after watching your response to the CNN thing on atheists. I
   also left a post there that pretty much sums me up and my the position my put in
   being an atheist. I agree with almost everything you said in the video. I try
   and tell the same thing to my friends that are christian, but I’m mean and sadistic
   by nature (or by choice, i dont know, prolly the 2nd) and usually come off as a duck.
   I’ll have to direct them to your vidoes so they can explain my stance. I think
   being an atheist does keep my mind open to alot of things (Go figure), while also
   keeping me a skeptic. Its good to be a healthy skeptic so as not to be duped
   into anything or the such. Me and an atheist friend conducted and experiment the
   other day in algebra where we told one person at a time and in uniform fashion in
   the class that someone had been stabbed (Great topic) on campus earlier today.
   The reaction from the christain majority of the class was one of “OMG! REELY!?”
   and then they would tell their friends, and i believe that they genuninely (TYPO’d im sure)
   believed it until be revieled that it was false. The response from the atheist or
   non-religious side of the class was that of “Fuck off, thats not true”. I think
   you can see my point, but i want to say this is just an analysis of my algebra
   class and not to be taken as a view of any one group or groups.

   I disagree with you one one thing. I do believe that we can live outside of our
   physical form when we die. If a person can send electric impulses to the muscles
   of their body from the brain, why cant the brain create a collection of them that
   retain our thoughts and personalities in it. Its a great hope, keeps me living for now
   , otherwise, fuck it, im dead. Anyway, thats what i think. It brings meaning to
   my life i guess just as christian beliefs bring meaning to christain lives

   Comment on April 16, 2007 @ 1:58 am

6. Micheal dickson wrote,
   

   just beautiful amazing for a first video

   Comment on April 16, 2007 @ 10:14 am

7. Michael O'Neil Brown wrote,
   

   Wow. Really great stuff here. Its all just so… sensible! I laughed out loud a few times too, great job.

   Comment on April 17, 2007 @ 1:15 am

8. Nathaniel Dolynchuk wrote,
   

   Your video was pretty well done. The only thing I would disagree with
   is getting wasted with your friends being a waste of time. I see it as
   time I spent hanging out with people I care about and having a good time
   while I was at it. There is satisfaction helping others see more then the
   straight and narrow path, but there is also satisfaction drinking 10 shots
   of jack with your friends at the cabin playing frizbeer and generally
   having a good time.
   I recommend this at LEAST once every few months, and up to two times a month.

   Comment on May 9, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

9. neilmarr wrote,
   

   For me, your videos fall on deaf ears … that’s a physical hiccup and nothing to do with the quality of your work. So I’ve read all the transcripts instead.

   I think I mentioned in another note to you that much of what you say is, of course, not necessarily new to those who’ve taken the time to think and to study; but you put it as well as anyone I’ve ever come across — and lightyears ahead of how most atheists could express themselves.

   As a spokesman for unbelief, you have two rare qualities that make your argument so convincing; clarity of presentation in your knowledge and an enviable ability to conceal your frustration with the sheer abdication of intelligence that is theism.

   All power to your elbow, Al. Best wishes. Neil in France.

   Comment on May 17, 2007 @ 6:46 am

10. Kevin (The Roycing Carnap) wrote,
    

    Introduction: I am not religious nor am I an atheist—I am agnostic. I do not subscribe to theories of Intelligent Design or Creationism. I go where inquiry leads me, even if it is somewhat contrary to my own opinions. When I propose arguments, the conclusion is not to be taken as somehow partisan, either toward atheism or theism or ID. I apologize for my verbosity. Unfortunately my current academic trajectory tacitly places high standards on the ability to speak opaquely and at length about matters of little to no concern to anyone. Please just keep these thoughts in mind when reading or responding to any of my comments.

    An Atheist Response
    1) With regard to the issue of proving and disproving God, you propose that the burden of proof is on any sensationalist claim to provide evidence for that claim. But atheism is the sensationalistic claim. The more fundamental question is: on what basis can we call claims extravagant? If we are judging on cultural background—and many other proposed bases would simply presuppose their own conclusion as to the proper basis—the burden of proof is not always on those making positive ontological claims (i.e. that an object exists), but can be on those making negative ontological claims (i.e. that an object does not exist). The burden of proof is on Bishop Berkeley to show that objects don’t really exist, etc. This is because it has become so entrenched in tradition that there are material things outside of our perceptual sensations. From a purely pragmatic point of view, this position has worked for us for the large part of history; the burden is on those who wish to challenge that custom. Indeed, this is the norm in scientific practice—a theory is proposed and, if it works, is kept until it is challenged, at which point it is the prerogative of the challenger to provide strong evidence in support of rejecting to the previously established dogma. “In the absence of alternative hypotheses that can explain the phenomena in at least as satisfactory a way as the prevailing theory, scientists hesitate to abandon the prevailing theory (Lambert & Brittan, 1992, p. 57). The main point here is that the atheist is, on a historical scale, making the sensationalist claim, and not the theist.

    You’re argument rests, to an extent, on cultural relativism (a position that I am fine with, and is, on a purely factual level, almost necessary for the social sciences). But you are already rejecting the culturally established norm of religion. This is not to say that you cannot provide evidence for the rejection of a supernatural entity (I will get to that in another post). Rather, I am just trying to point out incoherence in your argument that the burden is on theists to prove God.

    In an ideal world, all cultural norms and establishments would be put to the test. This is not an ideal world. Heuristic devices must be employed—that is necessitated by selection pressures. The burden is almost always on those who wish to challenge or transform those norms and devices.

    2) Disagreement in religions is often cited as evidence for the fundamental incoherence of religious beliefs and thus for the existence of God(s). However, disagreement may only indicate a flaw of knowledge, nothing ontologically relevant. In other words, there is a fundamental ambiguity as to whether disagreement indicates the inexistence of the object of which we are disagreeing about, or if it indicates the flawed nature of our knowledge of that object, or simply experiential difference that is largely unrelated to the object. If you say the rock is gray, and I say that it is bright pink (why is pink always such an important color for arguments?), does that indicate that the rock doesn’t really have a color? Or, rather, does it simply mean that one of us is wrong.

    Now, of course the question of falsification comes up—i.e. that we can in principle falsify the claims about the rock, but not about God. Now, there are two points to be made here. First, let us just take for granted that disagreement is some indication that God does not exist. We are already assuming, by this very argument, that God is, and has been, falsified. I will talk about falsification in a different post, however.

    Second, in what sense are our claims about the rock falsifiable? One might say that we can just go up to the rock. But what would this achieve? We will still hold our contrary beliefs. Or perhaps we can ask even more people. But, we couldn’t trust inter-subjectivity with two disagreeing people, how can we be assured that even more people will be satisfactory? This is not to reject inter-subjectivity in confirmation, but I am questioning just what principle grants such inter-subjective confirmation its validity. (I am not sure I agree with what I am saying, but you have to provide an argument as to why it is unsound reasoning.) In other words, the only way we could legitimate inter-subjective confirmation is to actually be able to check what each person is seeing. But this is impossible. Moreover, in just what sense can we say that the rock is pink or gray? This is the issue of Wilfred Sellars’ pink ice cubes—are the atoms of the pink ice cube, or the molecules, themselves pink? Not really. Which is the proper level of description to apply to our judgments? Perhaps the rock is spray-painted pink, but would otherwise be gray. Is it really gray, or is it really pink? Is it both? Well, all clever connotations aside, this is a logical impossibility. So, we are faced with several paths. We could reject the question of the color of the rock because it is unfalsifiable. But the question is perfectly meaningful. We could simply say that the question is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, in just the way that the question of God is unscientific. But still, it is not a meaningless claim—and it still is a valid ontological question. Or, we could say that the rock simply does not exist, because there is disagreement as to its characteristics. None of these paths seem plausible to me. I think the best thing to say is that invoking disagreement as any sort of justification (no matter how implicit or explicit) for citing the disagreement of something is questionable.

    3) I believe that you are begging the question (i.e. taking as a premise what you mean to conclude) that the scientific method of “self-correction” is more valid than religious claims to knowledge. You are already presuming that the matters with which we are dealing should be subject to self-correction, that this is appropriate and desirable. But couldn’t one claim that religious “knowledge” is not subject to the criteria of self-correction, for they ascent to an absolute truth that cannot be modified?

    4) I also find your point about Pascal’s Wager, and I do not mean to be too harsh here, flawed. First of all, even if ascenting to the “wrong” religion does have negative payoff, the probability of positive benefits coming from ascribing to any religion is higher than in atheism. This is because we are at least entering the arena, increasing the chances that we may just stumble onto the prize-winning bunch. The probability of gaining money is, under normal circumstances, much higher if you enter the casino than if you remain outside it. Of course, you may very well lose a great deal of money. But you still have the initial possibility of acquiring money, which you have not had outside of the casino.

    Second, you are conflating the psychological attitudes of religious fervor with religion itself. That is, you are claiming that the practical consequences of religion are already quite negative as a result of wars, deaths, crusades, etc. And you are claiming that these negative consequences are directly related to religion. However, the argument needs to be made, or must be made much more explicitly, as to the inseparability of the uses made of religion, and religious ideology itself.

    5) You statement of “uncomfortable truths” begs the question by assuming them as “truths.” They may be uncomfortable hypotheses, but this does not beg them to be acknowledged as truths. If we do away with the premise that they are truths, science is just as aimed toward comfort (at least according to pragmatists) as is religion. Science seeks to eliminate “uncomfortable ‘truths’” and in fact does so, partly, by explaining them away as, some may put it, causally determined in some sort or another.

    6) “Death comes soon, we must use our lives preciously.” Whence comes the intrinsic value of life? I agree that the denial of God does not mean nihilism, but simply asserting this does not constitute a very convincing argument. If you are a hardcore materialist (everything is physical), or even a behaviorist, the kind of humanist talk about the value of human life is meaningless. How do lives have value? Culturally? Intrinsically?

    Comment on May 22, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

11. AvangionQ wrote,
    

    I have to agree with everything else you said in the video except this. “And even though it is a theory we still treat it as fact because there is so much evidence for it. We can use this theory to design airplanes that won’t fall out of the sky.” Airplane design is a bad choice for describing the theory of gravity. Airplane design is mostly about propulsion systems and aerodynamics in the way the wing is shaped to provide less air resistance at the top of the wing so that the differences in air pressure pushes the wing, along with the rest of the airplane, upwards. The theory of gravity is much better suited towards explaining the acceleration curve of free falling objects before reaching terminal velocity or the manner in which earthbound satellites circle the earth at high velocity without crashing back down into the atmosphere or why the planets in the solar system circle the sun or why the tides exist as a result of the lunar and solar orbits or why comets are seen to suddenly accelerate and slingshot when passing nearby a massive object or why light bends around supermassive objects. I can think of a dozen other better explanatory observations for gravity’s effects.

    PS, thanks for letting me vent on a slightly irrelevant topic.

    Comment on August 5, 2007 @ 8:59 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

• Pages
  • Big Science
  • Proverbs
  • About | Contact - Al Sweigart
  • Invent Your Own Computer Games with Python
• Categories
• Search
• Archives
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • September 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
• 
• Meta
  • Register
  • Log in
  • RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WP