Sadly, a thread I was engaged in at Philosophy Forums was
recently locked while I was writing a reply to a delightful fellow called Ruskin. Since both of us had put so much effort in, I
thought I might provide my response to his
post here (note that I’ve kept all the petty snarkiness that I find more
easily identifiable when editing in the cold light of day, because it was what
I would have posted had I been able to at the time):
---
Excellent. Thanks for
that Ruskie. You’ve confirmed your
hypocrisy vis a vis your bible. It’s an
authority, but only once you’ve tweaked it a little. Which basically means that you can believe of
it what you will. If you come across a
bit you don’t like, it is obviously metaphorical. If you come across a bit you like a lot, then
of course it is meant literally.
Can you not see why certain people don’t take your bible
particularly seriously? Can you not
understand that you cannot use your bible as evidence for your argument?
(unless your argument is along the lines of “these words are written in the
bible in the book of X”) The bible is no
more evidence for your god than Harry
Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is evidence of Hogwarts.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: From
what I hear from some of you theists, your god is going to force me into some
sort of unpleasant relationship for the rest of eternity.
Ruskin replying: Is a
relationship of genuine love unpleasant?
No. The problem you
have is that there is no consistent body of evidence, not even your bible,
which isn’t evidence as mentioned above, to support your claim of genuine love
on the part of your god. Your bible is
full of evidence that your god is quite hateful. And, if it were the case that your hateful
god exists, since I have not spent my short existence on this planet denying
myself based on a flawed set of texts or grovelling on a weekly basis before earthly
representatives of your god, I am not likely to be the recipient of your god’s
rather creepy love.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: I
don't recall arguing against that particular line of yours. If I had I would
have pointed out that "good" and "evil" are terms that you
need to explain (are you talking about objective good and evil, or are you
suggesting that things are defined by humans as good and evil, where those
things might change category over time, or do you mean something closer to Sam
Harris where greater well-being is good and less well-being is bad)
Ruskin replying: Well-being
according to Sam Harris? What if people disagree with Sam Harris? Or say you
have well-being for the majority at the expense of a minority.
I do wish you could read a whole passage of text as a
whole. I presume that you don’t mean
what Sam Harris might mean by “good” and “evil”. At least we’ve whittled down your options a
little. I could ask what do you mean by
those terms, but actually I don’t care.
I didn’t ask you. I said that if
I was addressing a particular line of your text, then I would have asked you to
explain. But I didn’t actually ask you …
because I don’t care what you mean by “good” and “evil” because the sentence in
which you used those terms was incomprehensible.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: if you
mean something objective then you'd need prove the independent existence of
good and evil.
Ruskin replying: Prove you exist
and you're not some kind of figment of my imagination. Unless you provide
objective proof that I could hallucinate I will deny your objective existence
in reality.
That’s rather sophomore-ish, isn’t it? I’d have thought you were above that. Oh well, my willingness to see the best in
people is a constant source of disappointment to me.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: I
would also point out that the sentence is so poorly structured as to make no
sense, which is part of the reason that I didn't address it at all
Ruskin replying: If you're not
asking for clarification on whatever it was you didn't understand I'll just
take this to be a dodge
A dodge of what exactly?
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: All I
recall doing was presenting the tract as evidence that you "like to
think" things that you think and that you think it is better to just
assume stuff.
Ruskin replying: That was an
argument regarding freewill and how atheism would deny it even exists not an
assumption.
Let me requote what I quoted for comic effect:
neopolitan quoting Ruskin: There's
no point saying what accounts for morality and freewill if you don't even have
it. I would say we most certainly do have freedom of will and a genuine choice
of good and evil though I can't 100% absolutely sure. It's better to just assume that
this is true and that there must be a reason why this is true i.e God. Most
people would readily agree I like to think even if they don't accept
the Bible or whatever.
I’ve highlighted the bits that were pertinent to my point –
that you “base[] what [you] think[] on what [you] like[] to think and on assumptions
of what is true” .
You ignored these pertinent items and quoted back to me an
extract of the above, namely: “freedom of will and a genuine choice of good and
evil though I can't 100% absolutely sure.”
Out of context, this makes no sense whatsoever. To your credit, however, you did amplify:
neopolitan quoting Ruskin: If you
claim to not have your own freewill or ability to decide anything for yourself
then your opinion, which isn't really your opinion, can be easily ignored. It's
a simple case of just trying to point out that you're nuts to believe this and
bring you round to some relative human sanity and dignity, a bit of basic
appreciation for human existence and what have you.
Since I am a nice guy, I will address your comments. Again.
neopolitan quoting neopolitan: You're
talking about what I call "strong" free will. I'm pretty sure that
when you get down to brass tacks, the sort of free will you are talking about
is the sort that allows for decisions to be made that are not completely
dependent on pre-existing conditions - so a magic sort of acausal free will.
That sort of free will doesn't exist. There is a "weak" sort of free
will which I think is totally compatible with materialism and that allows me to
have my own opinions, an abundance of human sanity and more dignity than I can
handle. I also have an appreciation for human existence, especially my own, of
course, but I have no opinion on the Kirkland nut selection - is this somehow
related to your free will argument? (Perhaps, because there is a choice between
various types of nut, there must of course be free will, otherwise Costco would
only produce one of the varieties for their signature range - we could call
this the Kirkland proof of free will. It's not a good argument, but that
doesn't often seem to be an issue.)
Note that you have already responded to these points, so
there is no need to respond to them again.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: Is
"freewill" different to "free will". If so, please explain.
Ruskin replying: No?
I’m going to assume (given later comments) that “freewill”,
in your head, is what I refer to as “strong free will”.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: Yes,
you are describing what I call "strong" free will. A sort of diluted
godliness, an ability to bypass nature.
Ruskin replying: Yes exactly, so
we would have independence from the natural physical process of nature to some
degree being partially supernatural in nature yourself and that's where you get
freedom of will which ultimately comes from God who is a supernatural kind of
guy.
So, this is what I call “strong” free will – and as I have
said, this is not a grade of free will, it’s just what I call your definition
of free will so as to differentiate it from my own definition of free will,
which we could call “weak” free will.
Can we at least accept this?
Alternatively we could have “theistic free will” and
“naturalistic free will”, if you prefer.
What’s not going to fly is a claim on your part that there is no free
will other than your free will.
Ruskin: That's not to say we're
100% independent from nature because you're living as this naturally evolved
physical body and much of what we essentially do is on autopilot *reads
Dianetics* the "reactive mind" you can call it I suppose.
No comment.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: If you
mean that "strong" free will is freewill, then yes, that is a charade
and a pretence that ultimately amounts to nothing.
Ruskin replying: *voice of a
child* Why do you do believe that for?
I always think of you talking with the voice of a child, so
that was pretty unnecessary. I was just
agreeing with you.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: I
should be absolutely terrified by some of the physics and biology things that I
am intellectually aware of.
Ruskin replying: Well no you
shouldn't be
Way to go with the selective quoting, old boy. Here’s the context for people who can’t be
bothered going back to my post:
neopolitan quoting neopolitan: You
seem to think since I am intellectually aware that "strong" free will
is a charade, that I cannot put that aside and live like most other humans as
if "strong" free will were real. In a similar way, I should be absolutely
terrified by some of the physics and biology things that I am intellectually
aware of.
Of course I shouldn’t be.
That was my point. Thanks for
getting it.
Ruskin: but...ugh *reads
Dianetics* the body is something you own and use not something you are. It's
like if you drive a car, you may not be able to control or alter the mechanics
of the physical processes of the engine and everything operates a certain way,
but are at the same time a separate entity to the car you drive. You can even
stop the car and get out though you will be in a different "mode of
transport" if you do this no longer on the road. I haven't actually
Dianetics btw this just the kind of thing L Ron would write. This is fairly
typical of the general idea behind most religions anyway. There are some
materialist Christians who believe in a purely physical resurrection but I
think they would have the same issue with freewill you would have and what
would be brought back to life may be some kind of a copy or clone without a
non-material element.
No comment.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: Sadly
for you, that is not the case.
Ruskin replying: On the outside
you're some kind of tough punk but on the inside.
<image redacted>
Well, since I don’t exist, that’s not a problem - right?
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: Nor am
I consumed by existential despair.
I can't speak for all atheists,
of course, but I do suspect that most of them are not consumed by existential
despair either.
Ruskin replying: If they're not
then there is something wrong with them.
Oh lovely. Is this a
variation of the “no true Scotsman” argument?
An atheist is either consumed by existential despair, or is
defective. I don’t think you’ve provided
any argument here other than your opinion.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: Perhaps
theists simply don't have the strength of character that we atheists have
I’m going to stop you there, because again, you are quoting
me out of context. Here’s what I wrote:
neopolitan quoting neopolitan: Perhaps
theists simply don't have the strength of character that we atheists have, and
they would be filled with despair if they released their grasp on their god.
But I don't think that this is true, because there are plenty of ex-theists
around. Perhaps they could advise as to whether they are consumed by
existential despair.
Now back to your fragmented quotes and responses:
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: Perhaps
theists simply don't have the strength of character that we atheists have
Ruskin replying: Perhaps theists
have a great deal more strength of character? *thrusts Bible in your face* do
you think this doesn't present a formidable challenge? Not the easiest thing in
the world to have to grapple with but the ultimate purpose of human life is
depicted in some form or other right in here. It essentially spells out what on
some level at least you already knew, and in this way you are without excuse
for not believing in it as the Bible rightly says. To deal with this and accept
this truth and point others towards it takes some strength of character it's
not for the weak hearted. You do have to put some work into this faith business
rather than sacrificing God on the altar of "science" and progress.
Atheism has been around in some form or other for thousands of years isn't
necessarily some kind of forward advancement in reason or that people living in
the past were necessarily more stupid than they are today.
I didn’t think it was true that theists lack strength of
character. So you’re attacking a straw man.
Largely ignored.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: and
they would be filled with despair if they released their grasp on their god.
Ruskin replying: The denial of
the supreme reality of all life and consciousness to which we are all a part is
it's own despair. This is what hell will be if you continue to do this beyond
your physical life.
Hm, magic
chocolate …
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: But I
don't think that this is true, because there are plenty of ex-theists around.
Ruskin replying: If by their own
admission they were completely deluded as a theist how are we to know that they
aren't still deluded as an atheist? There's a credibility issue once they admit
to being delusion prone.
I suggest that ex-theists address this. I am not an ex-theist so I have no idea. What I can say is that part of the reason
that am not an ex-theist is because I was not indoctrinated as a child. I think it’s a little unfair to call people
who are indoctrinated as a child “deluded”.
But an ex-theist who has gone through it could address the issue much
better than I can.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: Perhaps
they could advise as to whether they are consumed by existential despair.
Ruskin replying: Well it's
something God will ultimately know and attempt to reconcile with them, be that
in this or the other side of eternity.
If your god exists, sure.
But not all of us are assuming that to be true.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: You
assert that we have free will and a basis for morality. I see no evidence from
you, yet again.
Ruskin replying: It says right
here in the Bible look.
"The heart of man plans his way,
but the Lord establishes his steps." Proverbs 16:9
This is the authority we're using
here not some man made philosophy some guy made up who doesn't really know
Jack.
"Stop trusting in mere humans,
who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?" Isaiah
2:22
I’m going to assume that that is a joke.
Ruskin: But this aside how the
fricken heck would you be able to prove something like this scientifically? If
it's just one opinion against another then even the Bible is going to give my
opinion an edge as I'm referring my opinion to something else.
If you can’t prove it, then don’t make assertions that it is
true. It’s pretty simple. And no, your bible doesn’t give you an edge,
because you’ve demonstrated that you are quite liberal with the interpretation
in it.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: my
versions don't include magic sky fairies
Ruskin replying: <video of “brilliant
kid” talking about Santa syndrome redacted>
Quoting out of context again. I see that you’ve come up with another great
authority. And the kid doesn’t seem
coached at all! (<- that was sarcasm,
by the way)
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: I am
suggesting that what you think free will is doesn't exist.
Ruskin replying: Nope it says we
do right there in the Bible *nods in smug self satisfaction*
Another joke? I do
note that “free will” is not mentioned in the bible at all. The word “freewill” is mentioned in the KJV
17 times, 16 of which is associated with “offerings”, mostly in Leviticus, so
it’s talking about an absence of coercion.
The 17th instance is in Ezra 7:13 “I make a decree, that all they of the
people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded
of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee”. Again this is about an absence of coercion.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: If it
wasn't for you and your sort thinking that free will was something magic, I
wouldn't have to delineate.
Ruskin replying: I suppose it
would be magic if we're talking about the supernatural powers.
You say “supernatural”, I say “magic”, they are of a kind.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: True,
so there really isn't any free will after all. The choice is illusory.
Ruskin replying: Or so you say.
What would make you change your mind?
A true selection to choose from, perhaps including something
that is not a nut-based snack. (The
example was yours – you know, that Kirkland nut range.)
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: Now
all life in the universe is part of a deliberate plan - do you want this to
mean that we humans are deliberately designed after all, rather than just
growing into template?
Ruskin replying: It's the exact
same difference if you mean humanoid life and there say billions of planets
inhabited by people look something like us. In a universe this big you can't
with a straight face say it was created for our one species specifically but it
will still work if you broaden the classification of human to include people
who technically on a genetic level wouldn't be.
Um, “the exact same difference”? Are you translating this from another
language?
So is it a deliberate plan, or did your god plant the seeds
(metaphorically) and then stand back to watch the outcome? You flip-flop a bit on this.
Ruskin quoting neopolitan: I do
love the fact that even an old universe theist will return to Genesis and quote
it as if it were authoritative.
Ruskin replying: The Bible is the
authority right there, fully compatible with evolution and an old Earth. Yes
you have to tweak it a bit but you can see that it still would work if applied
to the universe as a whole if there are people like ourselves on other planets.
That would seem more like a plan of immense design by a supreme being than some
kind of coincidental accident by a non-intelligent natural force.
The one thing that you are consistent on is the cherry
picking. Well done.
Tell you what. This
might convince me. Say that the Vulcans
arrive tomorrow, offering us membership of the Galactic Federation (based on
our plans to visit Mars). They then
introduce us to other parallel evolved humanoids (Ferengi, Klingon, Rakhari,
for example) and every single one of them have a similar story about an avatar
of a god visiting their planet of origin and dying to absolve them of their
sins.
When that happens, I will be convinced.
Will you be convinced that your god does not exist when we
meet these other humanoids and they are generally atheist or have wildly
divergent mythologies?
---
Well, that's it. At some stage, I might develop some of the themes in this (and in other threads on that forum).
