Potpourri
* Here’s an interesting video in which Christopher Hitchens claims to disprove the existence of God in fewer than 10 minutes. I actually did like his argument about North Korea. It’s a viewpoint so foreign from mine that it’s hard for me to even formulate a response.
* Speaking of a purely rational morality, David Gordon is giving a FREE 2-hour seminar tomorrow on Henry Hazlitt’s Foundations of Morality. Check it out!
* I’m actually kind of a big deal in Canada this week. I was the lead author on this study. This idea of a “Dutch Disease” is a big deal right now in Canada.
* Porcfest is less than a month away!! Here is a list of the Special Guests this year. Really, if you can get out there (it’s a bit of a pain), I can’t imagine you’d regret it.
* Here’s a “Moneylith” video I’ve been asked to pass along…
I’m actually kind of a big deal in Canada this week. I was the lead author on this study. This idea of a “Dutch Disease” is a big deal right now in Canada.
Thanks Dr. Murphy for playing an excellent part in helping our oil rich neighbors to see the value in oil and gas. Some places in the US import all of their oil from Canada.
“Thus, even if it is true that other things equal high worldwide commodity prices lead to large Canadian resource exports and hence make it harder for Canadian manufacturers to export their own goods, in practice other things aren’t equal, because the profitable Canadian resource sectors are able to demand more goods from manufacturers in neighbouring provinces.”
Money quote.
Christopher Hitchens should probably be Sunday material but I agree with the general gist of what he says, but certainly not with most of the details, and I don’t like the way he goes about saying it either.
Going up to a person and calling them stupid is not a good first step toward getting your ideas across to that person, even when they really are stupid… especially when they really are stupid. I know this because I have dealt with government bureaucrats. So it would make a lot more sense for people like Hitchens to spend more time studying religion, and less time just thinking they are always the smartest guy in the room.
Another point, if you want to believe in Darwin, then in order to be consistent you have to accept that religious people have been pretty overall successful and most of the Earth is religious one way or another. This should tell the thinking Atheist that it isn’t completely stupid. Hitchens accepts this by claiming that religion was the first attempt by humans to make sense of our world, but we can do better now. Well, that’s a start, but Atheism has been around for a long time:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
That famous quote from Epicurus is two and a half centuries older than anything spoken by Jesus Christ, and yet a lot more people are familiar with Christ’s words, so from a Dawkins point of view of competing “memes”, the Atheists are well behind. The “we can do better” concept is far from proven, and if everyone went about it in the way that Hitchens was doing, then we can say goodbye to peaceful coexistence and it might be another 1000 years before the question is reconsidered.
Another point, if you want to believe in Darwin, then in order to be consistent you have to accept that religious people have been pretty overall successful and most of the Earth is religious one way or another.
Why not compare the lesser religious areas of the world and the more religious areas of the world?
I would venture that more success is correlated with lesser religious behavior, and less success is correlated with more religious behavior.
Check out this graphic:
http://i.imgur.com/NDfDK.jpg
I suppose I would be accused of intolerance MF if I asked you to graph countries where people evaluated the following: “Do you think Jesus is Lord?” That would knock out most (all?) of the countries from your list, and I bet the new list wouldn’t be too shabby.
I’m picking up what you’re laying down. Yes, that would definitely “clean up” (did I say that?) a lot of the dark green areas on the map.
But then I will say that most of the nations who respond “yes” to your question, among those countries, there would probably be the same correlation between relatively less religious behavior and more success, and relatively more religious behavior and less success WITHIN the “Christian nations.”
I mean, how much can one produce (which I presumed is a measure of success) if one is mentally focused on non-wealth producing activity instead? Sure, a Christian can argue that productive behavior is doing the Lord’s work, but a Muslim would say you are blaspheming by not stopping what you are doing 5 times a day to pray in the direction of Mecca. The Christian is able to be more productive because they only have to stop producing on Sunday mornings (from Sunday days of course, but individualism is fiendish isn’t it?).
I think I said this before in one of the Sunday posts way back when, but Christianity is a highly individualistic creed, and so it more closely matches what Earthly success requires that most of the other religions lack. So I would say it’s not Christianity that is bringing relative success compared to other religions, it’s that it more closely aligns with what I consider to be vital to success, namely atheistic individualism. The closer any thought gets to this, religious or otherwise, the better. So in a religious world, I think Christianity is one of the least worst, so to speak.
That’s an interesting theory. I agree that Christian societies tend to outdo other religions, but I tend to view non-religious societies as being less likely to restrain the vices that prevent a free society from functioning. Europe is more secular than the US – and more socialist. They seem to be fading faster. They seem to have more property-destroying riots when their entitlements are threatened. Etc.
but I tend to view non-religious societies as being less likely to restrain the vices that prevent a free society from functioning.
Islamic theocracies, hello?
I think it’s the exact other way around.
Atheist totalitarian regimes, hello?
We can play this game all day MF. I think the freest (in our political sense) countries throughout history will be ones where the people subscribe to Christianity in their personal lives but also have a strong commitment to separation of church and state. Those communities, I claim, will be freer than ones where people are atheists, other things equal. One way of seeing this is that the absolute worst hell holes on Earth were not theocracies but atheist regimes (which is not to say that theocracies are cool).
(Or if you want, you can call them “theocracies” with the human as the godhead figure, but then I will refine my claim to faiths in a non-human being.)
Atheist totalitarian regimes, hello?
You mean the USSR? Yes, that’s true. But in the totality of all totalitarian regimes, how many were atheist and how many were theist? I will wager over 99% of all totalitarian regimes were based on some theocratic imposition.
We can play this game all day MF.
I don’t think we can play this game all day. We’ll play for maybe a minute, as you very quickly exhaust all atheist totalitarian examples, like, you know, the USSR and that’s pretty much it, after which I could continue on for the rest of the day, giving example after example of totalitarian theocracies, and then the next day I can continue, and then the next.
Atheist totalitarian regimes are definitely the exception, not the rule, and I would even go so far as saying the USSR was quasi-religious, because it was based on Marxism, and Rothbard I think convincingly showed that Marx was a religious eschatologist.
Marx didn’t adhere to a deity, but his epistemology and metaphysics was derived from earlier millennialist creeds.
I think the freest (in our political sense) countries throughout history will be ones where the people subscribe to Christianity in their personal lives but also have a strong commitment to separation of church and state.
I think if we restrict ourselves to religious societies, I will agree with you, the Christian ones will probably be the freest.
But that’s not saying much, really, because atheist anarchist societies I would argue would be even freer, because the compulsion to call for individual sacrifice would be less intense.
There would be nobody clamoring to kill virgins, or gays, or babies of fathers who have sinned, based on fulfilling the words of a textbook.
Calling for a separation between church and state I would argue is calling for productive atheists to live their lives free from state coercion. Productivity is the source of prosperity.
Major Freedom, I meant the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, and the Khmer Rouge. As far as I know they all systematically persecuted religious belief in the traditional sense. I then clarified and said something like, “If you want to say that some of these regimes declare their secular head to be the god, OK, then refine my claim to mean faith in a non-human God.”
To be fair though M_F, there haven’t been a lot of powerful atheists around until recently, to set up these dictatorships. So the sample size isn’t big.
“refine my claim to mean faith in a non-human God.”
No, I think Christianity should count.
Major Freedom, I meant the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, and the Khmer Rouge.
Sure, I think most will agree with those. But how long did it take you? Less than a minute, right? They’re 20th century examples when socialism spread throughout the world.
Imagine how long it will take to list 5,000 years worth of theocratic tyrannies? We’d be here for weeks.
As far as I know they all systematically persecuted religious belief in the traditional sense. I then clarified and said something like, “If you want to say that some of these regimes declare their secular head to be the god, OK, then refine my claim to mean faith in a non-human God.”
Are you sure that’s a good idea for your argument? Jesus was human. Christians have faith in a human God. I think Christianity should count.
I mean what’s the real difference between Kim Il Sung and Jesus? Both are worshiped. Both were human. Both have died. Both are treated as existing leaders.
Fair enough on the theological point about the divinity and humanity of Jesus, MF, but c’mon: Jesus Himself (or himself in your view) never sat at the head of an earthly government and instituted a tyranny. Some of His followers did and claimed that were carrying out His wishes, but c’mon that is a pretty important distinction.
I am saying that in practice, just about all of the worst hellholes on earth have had, at their head, a person who did not recognize that there was a higher power than him. I think I read in Mises that Hitler said he was the Fuhrer on earth and God was the ultimate Fuhrer, so if that’s true I will grant that one major exception.
Also MF, I think you are underrated just how awful the communist regimes were. Maybe I’m totally off base, but I think they were far more totalitarian than historical theocracies, especially if we’re talking about theocracies that didn’t think the earthly ruler was God himself.
Fair enough on the theological point about the divinity and humanity of Jesus, MF, but c’mon: Jesus Himself (or himself in your view) never sat at the head of an earthly government and instituted a tyranny.
OK, well that’s because he was killed at a relatively young age.
Do my arguments above require the event of a Jesus tyranny in order for my arguments to make sense, or to be valid, or to be stronger? I don’t see how.
What I do know is that there are many more examples of theocratic tyrannies throughout history where the tyrant “respected a higher power”, including Christian/Catholic based ones.
My point was more about religion in general though, rather than Christianity in particular.
Some of His followers did and claimed that were carrying out His wishes, but c’mon that is a pretty important distinction.
Not to my point it isn’t. Theocracies are by implication of theism, ruled by representatives of Gods, not Gods.
I think it’s important to note that all theocratic tyrannies throughout history were ruled by “representatives” of some deity or another, so of course you won’t see any examples of a deity being observed sitting on a throne, giving orders and whatnot. Religion isn’t humans worshiping other humans, it’s humans worshiping deities, and the resulting human oppression always has God’s “human representative” sitting on the throne. That’s the whole point.
I am saying that in practice, just about all of the worst hellholes on earth have had, at their head, a person who did not recognize that there was a higher power than him.
I think it’s the exact opposite. I think virtually all hell-holes on Earth have had a representative of some deity or deities, at their head.
Mao Tse-Tung for example believed in Gods.
From Mao’s poems:
“Winds flap the sail, tortoise and snake are silent, a great plan looms. A bridge will fly over this moat dug by heaven and be a road from north to south. We will make a stone wall against the upper river to the west and hold back steamy clouds and rain of Wu peaks. Over tall chasms will be a calm lake, and if the goddess of these mountains is not dead she will marvel at the changed world.”
This is from Mao’s “Little Red Book”:
“There is an ancient Chinese fable called “The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains”. It tells of an old man who lived in northern China long, long ago and was known as the Foolish Old Man of North Mountain. His house faced south and beyond his doorway stood the two great peaks, Taihang and Wangwu, obstructing the way. With great determination, he led his sons in digging up these mountains hoe in hand. Another graybeard, known as the Wise Old Man, saw them and said derisively, “How silly of you to do this! It is quite impossible for you few to dig up these two huge mountains.” The Foolish Old Man replied, “When I die, my sons will carry on; when they die, there will be my grandsons, and then their sons and grandsons, and so on to infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and with every bit we dig, they will be that much lower. Why can’t we clear them away?” Having refuted the Wise Old Man’s wrong view, he went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. This moved god, and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their backs. Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese people. One is imperialism and the other is feudalism. The Chinese Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must persevere and work unceasingly, and we, too, will touch GOD’s heart. Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”
So you can add Mao as another tyrant who respected a higher power.
That makes Mao, Hitler, two theist tyrants of the alleged 20th century “atheist” dictatorships.
I think I read in Mises that Hitler said he was the Fuhrer on earth and God was the ultimate Fuhrer, so if that’s true I will grant that one major exception.
Plus Mao.
So you got Stalin, I got Mao and Hitler and Kim Jong Un (who holds his dead grandfather as a higher power than he, which of course implies the supernatural.)
Also MF, I think you are underrated just how awful the communist regimes were. Maybe I’m totally off base, but I think they were far more totalitarian than historical theocracies, especially if we’re talking about theocracies that didn’t think the earthly ruler was God himself.
This comparison gets tricky, because we have to separate horrible conditions caused by the simple fact that labor productivity was low, that technology was virtually non-existent, and so on, with horrible conditions caused by the totalitarianism itself. It’s hard because the two are inextricably linked. We have to think about what ifs, and that gets messy and subject to biases and whatnot.
Yet I look at some of the medieval torture chamber stuff, and if you’ll excuse me for saying this, I think the gas chambers in Nazi Germany were more “humane” than the medieval torture machinations.
I think you may be underrating the truly horrible conditions that existed in tyrannies prior to the 20th century socialist “atheist” tyrannies, which you now exclude Nazi Germany (which is, putting it mildly, a fairly significant example), and I have excluded Mao Tse-Tung as well.
I guess you could argue that Stalin killed more people, and Stalin did not respect a higher power, but again, he had access to technology and resources than theocratic tyrannies did not have. Imagine Stalin being a tyrant in 1000 AD. He’d almost certainly have killed fewer people, relative the total population of course.
The main problem here is that the two atheist tyrannies (Stalin, Khmer Rouge) didn’t arise until the 20th century, when centuries of capitalism brought about by a rationalization and de-mystifying, but not de-deifying, of the world.
Google “World’s Worst Dictators”, and you’ll find that virtually every single one believes in a higher power.
Hitler’s religious views are disputed. Publicly, like George Washington, he professed a belief in god, and christianity. His private conversation seems to show a disdain for christianity and its ‘weakness’.
He ceratinly believed in a ‘higher power’ or ‘fate’ but the nature of that power is murky IMO.
Many nazis on official paperwork would list their religion as ‘Gottglaubig’, meaning God-believing but carefully not identifying as christian.
I guess we can quibble over whether or not “Our God is the mass of Chinese people” is or is not respecting a higher power.
I think it is. You might disagree.
Ken B:
He ceratinly believed in a ‘higher power’ or ‘fate’ but the nature of that power is murky IMO.
I fully agree the nature of that power is murky!
Or did you mean Hitler’s conceptions of that power are murky!
If so, I call a Freudian slip.
@M_F: Yeah, my wording was clumsy. I meant it is hard to tell just what Hitler thought about higher powers. I suspect his thoughts were murky, but I meant the evidence we have doesn’t give us a clear picture, IMO.
Isn’t it enough to know Hitler believed in a higher power? That was the rules of the game Murphy and I agreed to.
The exact nature of the higher power beliefs is something else we can talk about for sure, it’s just not a part of what we’re talking about (yet).
M_F: Yes, by the rules of the game as stipulated. But Bob already claimed Hitler as one of his own.
insert glyph for evil smiley here
We are already agreeing that Christian and non-religious societies are more productive than Islamist societies. I’m arguing that as Christian societies become less religous, they become more socialist and entitled and less productive. I see evidence of this in Europe and the US, but I would need to examine it further; right now it is just a hypothesis founded on my existing biases.
I’m arguing that as Christian societies become less religous, they become more socialist and entitled and less productive.
One can argue that the world as a whole become exponentially more atheist during the enlightenment and industrial revolution, and world productivity has exponentially grown since then as well.
Thousands of years of mysticism didn’t amount to much in the way of productivity, and once the world become more secular, productivity grew.
I see this as evidence that contradicts your thesis.
So who’s right?
That’s a very interesting graphic. I believe it slightly oversimplifies a difficult topic but it would seem that Estonia is the best country on Earth (based on your correlation). Don’t tell Lord Keynes, he has terrible things to say about life in Estonia (not because he has been there, only because he doesn’t like their stats).
Sweden of course is the second best country (unless your name is Assange, and you managed to piss off the US military, in which case you might as well change your name to “I’m screwed” and he better believe in God because he’s going to meet him sooner than most of us).
Japan (from my limited conversations with the Japanese) is deeply spiritual, but they don’t directly connect with the idea of religion in the same sense that someone like Bob does. You will probably get very different results depending on how you word the question. Beyond that, modern Japanese culture is heavily influenced by American culture, which in turn has roots in Christian culture, so it’s very difficult to untangle cause and effect.
The map shows Indonesia and Thailand as both deeply religious, but their whole approach is completely different. India is shown as only averagely religious but yet they have more Gods than anyone. Then moving Northeast from India we are into Stan country, marked as more religious than India. See if you ask an Indian, “Do you care about religion more deeply than a Pakistani?” they will say “Yes”, but if you ask a Pakistani the same question in relation to an Indian he will also say “Yes”.
I note that overall Africa is highly religious, and that surprises me because I can’t think of any great religious philosophers who were African (except perhaps Nelson Mandela, who comes from one of the parts of Africa with lower religiosity than the other parts).
I dunno, a lot of it doesn’t make much sense, but one thing that really stands out is that the closer to the equator you are… the more you believe in God. I propose the thesis that freezing your balls off will sever your connection with the divine. Bob Murphy (being a Southern boy) clearly supports my theory here.
Australia is pretty warm overall, but not very religious, but that’s an unusual case.
MajFre: I did some followup research on Estonia (if you believe the incredibly prejudiced Guardian) —
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/sep/16/estonia-least-religious-country-world
“A new phenomenon during the last 15 years has been the rising number of Estonians identifying themselves with a nature-spirituality that could be defined as the Estonian neo-paganism. However, exactly what this is is much more difficult to explain, as it stresses individualism in religious matters. Although the organisation of the neo-pagans claim to represent pre-Christian religious tradition that has been passed from generation to generation through centuries, and dislikes the term neo-pagan, the historical facts do not support its arguments.
Estonian neo-paganism is closely associated with reverence to nature as well as reviving and following the centuries-old folk traditions, such as the lighting of bonfires during the summer solstice.”
It just goes to show the fascinating multi-dimensional nature of the religious experience. I think that’s another thing that muddies the water of the whole discussion, which is the emergent religiosity in nominally Atheist communities. Consider the whole “science is settled” community of Global Warming advocates. Any reasonably neutral outside observer would have to note clear signs of both tribalism and religious up-welling within that movement. But if you ask them, they are absolute devotees to the scientific method and the purest of pure logic.
At the same time the Keynesian / Central Planning economics brigade have their share of communal beliefs they consider unassailable, they have their Good Book (a.k.a. The General Theory). It is true because they want it to be true, it serves a higher purpose. You see the same theme in a lot of places, I doubt there’s an easy escape from it.
Interesting the way Christopher Hitchens says that Theists have only just started their journey, once they become Deists and find evidence that God exists. I’d argue that the entire mirror image is equally true that Atheists have just started their journey once they throw God away.
I’m curious if a believer like Bob finds any of Hitchens’ arguments slightly convincing. I guess any doubt you might feel is just a test that you have to go through?
Ano, I don’t understand this constant derision of the possibility that someone could actually think that the evidence comes down on the side of the existence of God. Yes, of course I find some of Hitchens’ arguments convincing. I find some of Krugman’s arguments convincing too.
But if I were to say that about Krugman, no Austrian would laugh and say, “Ha ha, I guess that’s just you being tested by the ghost of Mises.” No, they’d say, “I’m glad you are open-minded Bob, but explain to us why you ultimately still think the Austrians are right.”
Well obviously I wouldn’t expect you to change your mind, and I don’t mean to offend you — I know you’ve heard it all before and you have a thick skin. It’s just that you call it “evidence” but for these extraordinary claims it hardly merits the term. It says it in the Bible, and you feel very strongly about it.
“It’s just that you call it “evidence” but for these extraordinary claims it hardly merits the term. It says it in the Bible, and you feel very strongly about it.”
Wow, you sure nailed Dr. Murphy there. That is exactly what his arguments in favor of Christianity have been. It’s not like he has devoted posts on Sundays for about 4 years explaining his beliefs in detail. No, he just blathers on and on about “It says it in the Bible, and I feel very strongly about it.”
Well, I’m not sure all of those posts add up to evidence. I know he thinks the writers of the Bible are credible because of persecution.
But Ano, Hitchens wasn’t talking about the Christian God in this video, he thought he was disproving the existence of God, period. So while I can understand the sense in which he is viewing God as a tyrant, my glib reaction (if you’re interested) might go like this:
Without any reference to the Bible at all, just relying on the nature of our physical universe as described by atheist or agnostic scientists, I think there is a compelling case to be made that an intelligent being specifically designed it to support human life. The only other way I can explain our observations, is to assert that there are an infinite number of possible universes, each with different physical constants etc. To explain our empirical observations by reference to an infinite number of universes that are, by definition, unobservable, strikes me as the most flagrant violation of generally accepted scientific principles imaginable.
Now, against this consideration, we have Christopher Hitchens observing that at least if you lived in North Korea, you could die. But you can’t escape from God in such a way. That was his crushing argument against the existence of God.
Not only do I think the first type of evidence carries more weight, but I am surprised even atheists would disagree with me. Hitchens is actually explaining why he would be repulsed if God existed. That is hardly an argument for God’s non-existence. At best, it is an argument against the optimism of the typical theist.
I’m not impressed with the multiverse idea either. But I don’t think he was saying the North Korea argument was his case against God — as you said, only whether (the Christian) God’s existence would be desirable.
“I think there is a compelling case to be made that an intelligent being specifically designed it to support human life.”
Doesn’t the theory of evolution address this case ?
Rob I’m talking about this kind of stuff. No, evolution doesn’t have anything to do with that. The only agnostic argument I’ve seen says that there are an infinite number of universes, and so of course some of them will have just the right combination of factors to support sentient life, and hence we shouldn’t be surprised that we are alive to observe a universe with just the right combination.
I think the “crushing” argument Hitchens made was not that you can at least die to escape North Korea, but rather it was identifying the difference between “There is no God” and “There is no good reason to believe in God.”
He said he respected people like Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, who were deists, and not theists. Hitchens was saying there is no good reason to believe any theist doctrine.
He said not even Aquinas (whom he presumably holds as the most intelligent deist ever), couldn’t go from step 1 to step 2, and so he gave up.
I think Hitchens is more concerned with arguing that there is no good reason to believe in any of the Gods that anyone on Earth has ever attempted to describe in any more detail than the deist conception. It’s Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc that he is saying there is no good reason to accept.
You’re right, that’s not a disproof of God though.
What I find interesting is that whenever theists are confronted with arguments against the theistic aspects of God, the details of God, what almost always happens is that the theist will only defend the deist conception of God.
They could grant everything superficial the atheist says, but will retain the deist conception of God, of “I believe God exists.”
You are a Christian, and your response to what Hitchens said is that you believe in “a” God, a “deist” God. What about all the rules and whatnot in Christianity? What God said, did, and so on? Hitchens is saying there is no good reason to believe in any of that stuff.
It’s one thing to say “I think there is a God.” It’s quite another to say “I know his name is Ralph and he likes pizza.”
The only other way I can explain our observations, is to assert that there are an infinite number of possible universes, each with different physical constants etc. To explain our empirical observations by reference to an infinite number of universes that are, by definition, unobservable, strikes me as the most flagrant violation of generally accepted scientific principles imaginable.
Brian Greene doesn’t think so. Greene thinks that predictions can be made using mathematical models of multiverses, and so can be considered falsifiable evidence.
For example, he postulates that if a mathematical model of multiverses predicts the existence of a particular particle common to all universes in the multiverse, and we find that particle in our universe, then Greene argues that would increase his confidence that the multiverse model is right.
Another example. He imagines that the cosmological constant in each universe varies uniformly, and upon closer examination of a multiverse model, the theory just so happens to reveal an interesting feature, namely, the math shows that for a universe that has a cosmological consent close to our cosmological consent, there is always a species of particle whose mass is, say, five thousand times that of a proton, too heavy to be detected in 20th century accelerators, but right within the range of 21st century particles. If the particle is observed as predicted, Greene argues it would be evidence to him that the multiverse theory is right.
Hitchens is actually explaining why he would be repulsed if God existed. That is hardly an argument for God’s non-existence. At best, it is an argument against the optimism of the typical theist.
Let’s explore this a little more. What are the implications of a discovery that God is repulsive? Sure enough, that alone cannot possibly be an argument that God does not exist.
But what if the only God that we can think of existing, after debating and discussing it, is a God that is repulsive? That the totalitarianism inherent in God is just “offputting” to human sensibilities of valuing freedom and privacy?
What would that mean for such things as the human psyche? Of our existence? Would it mean we could only ever be slaves? That there is nothing more?
Let me invoke some Brian Greene logic. What if you, myself, and everyone else in the world were living under an Earthly totalitarian dictatorship, where the ruler has such enormous power, such technological knowledge, that it knows EVERYTHING about what you think, feel, and do. It can see and know everything about you, even when you are sleeping. It know your dreams, your desires, and can end your life whenever it wants.
Suppose that everyone knows this. Suppose that everyone accepts it.
Imagine though that one day, you think that you don’t have to be a slave. That you have the ability to mentally reject the validity of the totalitarian’s rule over you. That you say NO! I do not have to be a slave to you.
Now, in a multiverse model where every universe has a totalitarian that rules it, what do you think is the probability of any one totalitarian ALLOWING such rebellious thoughts among its own property? It’s probably virtually nil. It would be like you agreeing to let your artificial heart develop self-awareness and choice.
Well, if the probability of that is zero, and yet we observe in THIS universe beings like ME, who DO think that they don’t have to be ruled by any totalitarian, that I can, if I choose, use all my might to destroy the totalitarian, doesn’t the existence of my thought alone constitute strong evidence of the non-existence of such a totalitarian? The chances of ME thinking this, in this universe, among a practically infinite number of multiverses with totalitarian rulers, is so infinitesimally small, that the likelihood of such a totalitarian existing is likewise infinitesimally small?
Given this, doesn’t it stand to reason that there is no good reason to accept the scenario that has an infinitesimally small probability of occurring, over the scenario that has 0.99999999999 probability of occurring?
I originated this attempt at a disproof of God by building off the totalitarian idea known since the ancients.
Egoist wrote:
Well, if the probability of that is zero, and yet we observe in THIS universe beings like ME, who DO think that they don’t have to be ruled by any totalitarian, that I can, if I choose, use all my might to destroy the totalitarian, doesn’t the existence of my thought alone constitute strong evidence of the non-existence of such a totalitarian?
Right, there isn’t a totalitarian monster ruling over the universe. There is a loving Father who created you and gives you the freedom to reject Him, and even continues to sustain your life as you deny His existence.
I don’t expect to persuade you with that statement, but it’s shocking to me how many non sequiturs go flying around when people debate theology. It looks like you really thought you had a knock-down argument against my view of God, when you were just elaborating on my view of God, and something I would have volunteered to you in 2 seconds if you had asked. In other words, it’s hardly embarrassing for me to explain why you have free will. That’s central to the Christian notion of God.
Bob you write “The only other way I can explain our observations, is to assert that there are an infinite number of possible universes, each with different physical constants etc. To explain our empirical observations by reference to an infinite number of universes that are, by definition, unobservable, strikes me as the most flagrant violation of generally accepted scientific principles imaginable.”
I don’t quite see the flagrancy that you do. First, several theories which provide otherwise perfectly testable predictions, and are accurate, also imply multiple dimensions/universes. So that the conclusion of multiple universes is not simply picked out of the air to satisfy the anthropic principle.
But moreover, scientists are in fact thinking of ways to test the idea of multiple universes ( for example http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1108/110802-first-test-of-multiverse)
So on the one hand you have an explanation which arises out of otherwise solid theories which is being tested by scientists. And on the other hand you have God, who is held without any other testable predictions, and who is in fact beyond any attempts of proof.
Right, there isn’t a totalitarian monster ruling over the universe. There is a loving Father who created you and gives you the freedom to reject Him, and even continues to sustain your life as you deny His existence.
thump, thump, thump is this thing on?
I didn’t say totalitarian “monster”. I said totalitarian. You’re putting words in my mouth.
An egoist refrains from invoking moralistic conceptions like “monster”. (Loved the American Psycho joke in a previous thread, BTW)
You are telling me your theistic conception of God. OK, fine. You’re telling me God is loving, creative, benevolent, etc. Except I am not talking about any of that. I am talking about God’s totalitarian aspects. After all, totalitarians can love, create/produce, and let people do what they want within a given boundary he sets.
My argument has to do with the notion of a totalitarian watching over everything I think, do, and desire, who exerts power over me any way he wants, who can end my life whenever he wants, who I have no privacy from. THAT is the totalitarianism I was addressing. Forget about the “monster” aspect that I did not talk about.
If you can’t think amorally, if you at this time can only keep trying to put your ego in something outside yourself, which becomes a calling, which therefore arises a set of “oughts” for you, that this God is “good”, then consider the totalitarian in my argument to be “good.” It doesn’t matter! In my last post, put a “good” in front of every “totalitarian” you see.
My argument stands.
Even if the totalitarian is “good”, then the repulsive aspect can remain, the wanting to be free from it can remain, the wanting privacy from it, all of these things remain.
I don’t expect to persuade you with that statement, but it’s shocking to me how many non sequiturs go flying around when people debate theology. It looks like you really thought you had a knock-down argument against my view of God, when you were just elaborating on my view of God, and something I would have volunteered to you in 2 seconds if you had asked. In other words, it’s hardly embarrassing for me to explain why you have free will. That’s central to the Christian notion of God.
??? What is all this? What non-sequiturs are you talking about?
OK, you’re saying I have free will. But a “free” will that has definite boundaries according to God’s totalitarianism!
God gives his children a range of freedom, and a totalitarian can give his slaves a range of freedom. They can do some things according to choice, but there are some things the totalitarian physically prevents the people from doing.
So does the fact that the totalitarian gives his slaves SOME range of “freedom”, that this means the totalitarian is no longer repulsive to me? Certainly not! Even if the totalitarian grants his slaves a range of freedom to do what they want, he is still a totalitarian, he is still looking at everything they do, everything they think. He is still standing by with threats of force if his slaves break the totalitarian’s rules.
Now, you can believe that such a totalitarian is “loving”, and I will just say you don’t understand what egoist love is, but all that would be a red herring. It’s the totalitarianism aspect that I am referring to.
So even if you tell me of a loving totalitarian, a totalitarian that grants his slaves some range of freedom, who creates bread to fill my belly, and who promises to remain my master forever as long as I obey it, I would STILL be repulsed by it, and I would STILL say I don’t have to be a slave to it.
Everything else I said follows and is the same as before. You haven’t addressed the substance of my argument.
You just saw the word totalitarian, and you immediately conjured up a moralistic conception. Forget about morality for a second, just consider the MIGHT of such a totalitarian, and why one might feel repulsed by even a “good” totalitarian that knows everything that I do, everything that I think, who can kill me whenever it wants, and so on.
Another way of thinking about this:
What is the probability of a totalitarian being “good”, in a population of many totalitarians?
I have recourse to Earthly evidence, and I find that every totalitarian in history has acted “bad”.
According to man then, which you believe God made in his image, am I not right to conclude that there is strong evidence that God is a “bad” totalitarian, in addition to, or perhaps in lieu of, the “good” totalitarian you believe it to be?
In other words, is it really statistically accurate to call the totalitarian of this universe a “good” totalitarian? Wouldn’t it be like believing “good” human totalitarians are the norm?
I never quite understood why people get so excited about alleged “fine tuning”.
The multiverse idea seems quite plausible to me, but I think even that overcomplicates it.
If certain conditions are required for us to exist and observe reality, and if we do exist and observe reality, then you really only have two options:
1. We exist and observe and the universe does not meet these conditions, or
2. We exist and observe and the universe does meet these conditions.
The conditional probability of 1. is zero, so the conditional probability of 2. is one.
Far from being something to marvel at – an apparently “fine tuned universe” seems like a logical necessity to me.
Ano, you do realize you could actually read his posts on religion and develop an understanding of his beliefs before you make comments on here, right? Heck, they are even free to read.
Egoist,
You could have just read what Bob wrote and avoided all *that*.
If God allows you to reject him God isn’t a totalitarian. As He clearly doesn’t requires subservience.
It seems you immediately saw the word “monster” and just went off on an unfortunate tangent.
You could have just read what Bob wrote and avoided all *that*.
I read what he wrote.
If God allows you to reject him God isn’t a totalitarian. As He clearly doesn’t requires subservience.
God doesn’t allow one to reject him, without eternal punishment, the same way a human totalitarian doesn’t allow people to reject him without temporal punishment.
God does require subservience, because if you disobey God, you will be punished by God.
There is no escaping this.
It seems you immediately saw the word “monster” and just went off on an unfortunate tangent.
Sorry, you’re confused.
Just because God doesn’t allow you to enter his Kingdom doesn’t mean He is punishing you.
(That sounds like several “War On… arguments)
As I said, where’s the evidence other than introspection?
KP…
“Just because God doesn’t allow you to enter his Kingdom doesn’t mean He is punishing you.
Putting you in a place of eternal torment/pain/suffering/etc, with NO recourse of escape, no death, forever and ever, is most definitely a punishment!
“Putting you in a place of eternal torment/pain/suffering/etc, with NO recourse of escape, no death, forever and ever, is most definitely a punishment!”
You aren’t “put” there.
And, as Bob has pointed out many times, you’ve definitely been given a recourse of escape.
You may be punished, but it isn’t by God.
Exactly.
I mean, if I hold a shotgun to your head and say, “Bow down and worship me you peon, or I’ll make your head turn in to street pizza”, you have a choice, but don’t blame me if you are headless.
You had a “free” choice. No coercion involved.
Richie,
As I said before:
“Just because God doesn’t allow you to enter his Kingdom doesn’t mean He is punishing you.”
Not opening the gates to you is not the equivalent to pulling a trigger.
Just as I refuse to share my bread with you doesn’t mean I’ve killed you.
(I really though more readers of a libertarian’s blog would realize that)
KP:
“Putting you in a place of eternal torment/pain/suffering/etc, with NO recourse of escape, no death, forever and ever, is most definitely a punishment!”
You aren’t “put” there.
Yes, I am put there. It’s God’s plan.
I didn’t put myself there. I would rather have my soul, my entire existence eradicated, than be punished by God in hell for not obeying him. But God will keep my soul in a state of permanent torment. That is punishment. That is God putting me there.
It’s completely ridiculous to tell me that I put myself there when I am telling you I prefer NOT to be there. You can’t then respond with “If you don’t want to be there, then obey God!” because then you’d only be proving my point about God’s totalitarianism.
Like Hitchens said, at least I can die in North Korea. With God, it’s eternal totalitarianism.
And, as Bob has pointed out many times, you’ve definitely been given a recourse of escape.
That is exactly what a totalitarian supporter would say. Obey the master, and everything will be alright.
You may be punished, but it isn’t by God.
Yes, it is by God. It wasn’t my plan. I didn’t design it.
KP:
Not opening the gates to you is not the equivalent to pulling a trigger.
It’s not the “not allowing you in to heaven” that is the subject I am talking about. It’s the positive act of God putting you into a state of eternal torment. if you disobey him. I don’t care if I don’t get into heaven. If my entire soul and existence would be eradicated upon death, then at least God’s totalitarianism is only temporary. But no, God remains your totalitarian master FOREVER.
THAT is the punishment I am referring to. It’s against my desires. I do not want God to be a totalitarian over me. I do not want to be put into either heaven or hell. I want to destroy any and all totalitarians over me, even the “good” ones like the Christian God.
Just as I refuse to share my bread with you doesn’t mean I’ve killed you
You are ignoring the crucial part. I don’t care if you merely deny me your bread. If that is all you did, then fine, at least you will have no power over me.
But with God, I don’t just get denied entry into heaven. God will put me into a permanent state of torment because I disobeyed him. I cannot control this. I am going to be either put in heaven if I obey, or hell if I don’t. I don’t want either heaven or hell, or any other place God designed. I want completely out of his entire plan altogether, in this life and in the afterlife.
You need to understand what the argument is, instead of continuing to repeat the belief you have that people are somehow doing it to themselves.
Egoist,
You keep repeating the same false assertions.
“Yes, I am put there. It’s God’s plan.”
If God planned it, then you have no will- there is no “you” at all – so it’s a moot discussion altogether.
Now, this (repeated, ad nauseum) idea that God “puts” you in Hell (or punishes you simply because you prefer some other alternative is groundless. You have limited options, in all aspects of life.
(But if annihilation is your style look into Seventh-Day Adventists, they’ll help you out.)
“But God will keep my soul in a state of permanent torment. That is punishment. That is God putting me there.”
No, God didn’t create Hell to capture (and keep) the souls of wicked men keep you in Hell, Hell is what comes from His absence.
Again, this realm isn’t controlled by God. (That’s one of the reasons for mankind itself.)
“You need to understand what the argument is, instead of continuing to repeat the belief you have that people are somehow doing it to themselves.”
Again, this reading problem you have is quite alarming.
Not once have I said you do it to yourself. I’ve said, repeatedly that God isn’t doing it to you.
KP:
You keep repeating the same false assertions.
If God planned it, then you have no will- there is no “you” at all – so it’s a moot discussion altogether.
So wrong in so many ways.
If an Earthly totalitarian gives you the option of either him being your master and you get bread, or him being your master and you get moldy cheese, and those are the only two options he imposes on you, then it would not be wrong to say that the totalitarian planned it. In addition, it does not preclude you having the ability of free will. You can have it, but the totalitarian uses his might to overrule what you want by giving you only two options, both of which retain the totalitarian as master of you.
I prefer to not have the totalitarian as master over me period. I don’t want him to be master over me and I eat bread, and I don’t want him to be master over me and I eat moldy cheese.
I want NEITHER. But as long as the totalitarian imposes only those two “choices” on me, then I can say he is a totalitarian AND I can also say I still retain the ability to not want him to be master of me.
If the implication of God planning heaven and hell, with my permanent soul to be in one of those places, where God remains master of me, if the implication of that to you is that I no longer have free will, then so be it. That is what is implied by me being FORCED into heaven or hell with God as totalitarian master over me.
Do you not understand what it means for a person to not want ANY being to be master over them? To not want ANY being to decide that they must go to either enslaved heaven or enslaved hell, for eternity?
You can’t claim that God didn’t plan it on the basis that if he did, then the implication would be something you don’t approve but which also has to be proven by you and cannot be presumed.
If the concept of God leads to no free will, so be it.
There are only two places God will put me. Heaven or hell. In both scenarios, God remains master. God remains totalitarian. There is no escape for me. This is NOT my plan. It is NOT my design. It is NOT my desire.
If you are compelled to say “tough luck, that’s reality”, then congrats, you just proved my point that God is a totalitarian who punishes and rewards according to if you disobey or obey.
Now, this (repeated, ad nauseum) idea that God “puts” you in Hell (or punishes you simply because you prefer some other alternative is groundless.
It is not groundless at all. It is no more groundless than an Earthly totalitarian offering you either the torture chamber, or the servant’s quarters, while I prefer NEITHER the torture chamber nor the servant’s quarters, and I quite rightly judge me being forced into the torture chamber as punishment.
Now you can interpret me being put into the torture chamber as merely “not being allowed in the servant’s quarters and being denied a comfy bed”, but that would be missing the point of my argument entirely.
I don’t want to go into the torture chamber, and I don’t want to go into the servant’s quarters either. I don’t want to be in any position where a master rules all, included deciding where I am put.
It is an absolute absurdity to interpret me being put into either the torture chamber or the servant’s quarters as somehow being MY choice, as if I put myself in one of these two locations. No, if I could choose without ANY master dictating and narrowing my “choices”, I would choose NEITHER the chamber NOR the quarters. But God the totalitarian forces me into one of those locations, and he decides where to put me based on observing my actions.
To say that I am making the choice, is like saying a victim of violence “chooses” rape if the alternative is torture, and “brought rape on himself”, and “put himself into a position of being raped.”
I cannot believe you don’t understand this simple argument. It’s so intuitive. It’s so obvious.
You have limited options, in all aspects of life.
That’s exactly what an Earthly totalitarian would say. While he forces either the torture chamber or the servant’s quarters on the prisoners, then he too can say to his victims “Don’t complain! There are limitations in all aspects of life!”
There is a gigantic, gaping chasm width of difference between “limitations in life”, and being limited into either heaven or hell with God as master over all.
And if you were consistent, you’d have to believe that whatever limitations exist in life, God planned for them. Do that’s only begging the question. I am saying God is a totalitarian, and you come back with “Your existence is limited, so accept God’s totalitarianism.”
(But if annihilation is your style look into Seventh-Day Adventists, they’ll help you out.)
I am not looking for help from those who are possessed.
And I don’t think you fully understand Adventism. They believe the end of the world is near. They believe Earthly annihilation is near. But they still believe that once everyone is dead, human souls will remain, with God remaining as master.
“But God will keep my soul in a state of permanent torment. That is punishment. That is God putting me there.”
No, God didn’t create Hell to capture (and keep) the souls of wicked men keep you in Hell, Hell is what comes from His absence.
No, God created everything, even where he does not reside. He planned for humans to be put in whatever you want to call non-heaven, if they disobey him. That is punishment from a totalitarian.
I do not want to be put in heaven or hell, and do not want to be put into a place designed by any God.
An Earthly totalitarian can throw those who disobey him over the cliff, into a place that the totalitarian did not create as well (even though here the Earthly master actually didn’t design the cliff.
Again, this realm isn’t controlled by God. (That’s one of the reasons for mankind itself.)
Of course it is controlled by God. God designed it. It is controlled just like an animal cage is filled with animals, by a human master, who then act within a predetermined range of freedom, is also controlled.
“You need to understand what the argument is, instead of continuing to repeat the belief you have that people are somehow doing it to themselves.”
Again, this reading problem you have is quite alarming.
Again, it is you who has the reading problem. You don’t seem to be able grasp the words I am typing. I am typing I want neither heaven nor hell, I do not want to be put into any place designed by God.
Not once have I said you do it to yourself. I’ve said, repeatedly that God isn’t doing it to you.
You keep repeating that error. No, God is doing it to me. It wasn’t my plan to be put into either heaven or hell for eternity.
Egoist,
Once again you’ve repeated the same incorrect ideas. They’ve been refuted multiple times now.
God doesn’t give you two options, God gives you only the one.
“If the implication of God planning heaven and hell, with my permanent soul to be in one of those places, where God remains master of me…”
I’ll stop you right there. It’s startling how you don’t read a thing yet write ever so much.
Maybe you have a religion where God did create Hell for man, but that doesn’t seem to be any mainstream Christian (Perhaps Eastern Orthodox?) denomination.
Luke 4:5-8 Makes it clear that it is not God who is in control of you – or this Realm.
“I am typing I want neither heaven nor hell, I do not want to be put into any place designed by God.”
You’re in luck then.
KP:
Once again you’ve repeated the same incorrect ideas. They’ve been refuted multiple times now.
You haven’t refuted anything KP. Really, I mean I consider myself a fairly intellectually honest person. If you did refute it, I would have at least recognized it as an attempt at a refutation, but I have shown that you didn’t even get my arguments correct.
God doesn’t give you two options, God gives you only the one.
I don’t want God to impose on me ANY options. Don’t you get it yet? I want out of the totalitarianism the concept of God represents. If you can only say “Well that’s reality”, then you’ll only be reinforcing my point.
“If the implication of God planning heaven and hell, with my permanent soul to be in one of those places, where God remains master of me…”
Maybe you have a religion where God did create Hell for man, but that doesn’t seem to be any mainstream Christian (Perhaps Eastern Orthodox?) denomination.
Luke 4:5-8 Makes it clear that it is not God who is in control of you – or this Realm.
Luke 4:5-8 makes no such statement, directly or indirectly.
It is astonishing how little you understand and yet you continue to talk as if you haven’t made all sorts of errors.
Luke 4:5-8 has Satan promising Jesus the Earth, and Satan saying the Earth has been given to him.
How in the world is that any proof that God isn’t in control of Heaven, Hell, and Earth? It’s Satan making a statement, and you’re telling me to TRUST WHAT SATAN SAYS??!??!?!
“I am typing I want neither heaven nor hell, I do not want to be put into any place designed by God.”
You’re in luck then.
Nope. Sorry, that place does not exist in the Christian doctrine.
“I don’t want God to impose on me ANY options. Don’t you get it yet? I want out of the totalitarianism the concept of God represents.
See what I mean? “Impose an option” If it’s an option it cannot be imposed.
If you can only say “Well that’s reality”, then you’ll only be reinforcing my point.”
And if your point is that reality blows because it doesn’t conform to your liking and thus totalitarian then the word simply lacks meaning. (Or, you’re using it incorrectly.)
Honestly, if you don’t believe in the Christian Doctrine that’s all well and good but it’s well established within it that God doesn’t control the Earth.
John 12:31, 16:11, Corinthians 4:4… just off of the top of my head.
Honestly, it’s hard to believe that you’re an “intellectually honest” person when you continue to commit such egregious mistakes.
KP:
“I don’t want God to impose on me ANY options. Don’t you get it yet? I want out of the totalitarianism the concept of God represents.
See what I mean? “Impose an option” If it’s an option it cannot be imposed.
See what I mean? if I imposed on you either bread or moldy cheese, it’s not an imposition on you even if you don’t want either!
Yes KP, options can very much me imposed. Restricting someone’s choices to only two options, slave in hell or slave in heaven, God as totalitarian in both, then it is in fact an imposition.
It’s like if a mugger says “your wallet or your life” you will interpret that as not an imposition because the victim has “choice.”
If you can only say “Well that’s reality”, then you’ll only be reinforcing my point.”
And if your point is that reality blows because it doesn’t conform to your liking and thus totalitarian then the word simply lacks meaning.
No, it doesn’t “lack meaning” at all. An existence where God is not totalitarian, an existence where God does not exist, is not “meaningless”. It has meaning for millions of atheists around the world.
(Or, you’re using it incorrectly.)
Nope. My not liking a situation where I am forced to choose between unwanted option A, or unwanted option B, such that God imposing A or B on me, based on my actions, as if my actions have anything to do with agreeing to either A or B, is what you are failing to grasp.
Honestly, if you don’t believe in the Christian Doctrine that’s all well and good but it’s well established within it that God doesn’t control the Earth.
John 12:31, 16:11, Corinthians 4:4… just off of the top of my head.
Neither John 12:31, nor John 16:11, nor Corinthians 4:4 in any way directly or indirectly show that God does not control ME. I don’t care about who controls or does not control the dirt.
In fact, all three passages you cited speak about me being “judged”. I don’t want to be “judged” by any God, or put in heaven or hell by any God.
Honestly, it’s hard to believe that you’re an “intellectually honest” person when you continue to commit such egregious mistakes.
What egregious mistakes? You haven’t shown me to have made a single one, and not only that, but it is precisely you who keeps making mistakes.
Hitchens doesn’t actually disprove the existence of God. I do think he does a good job of demonstrating that God isn’t necessary to explain any of the big questions we face , and that most religious stories can be made to look pretty stupid (and sinister) if framed in a certain kind of way.
I’d be interested read/watch any similar material from the God-camp if anyone knows of anything comparable.
Bob, is there any hypothetical evidence that would lead you to conclude that there is no God? So, while you find some arguments convincing, you still nevertheless still hold to God, and find counterarguments. But can you conceive of evidence which would lead you conclusively to reject the existence of God?
Bob, is there any hypothetical evidence that would lead you to conclude that there is no God?
If hyperinflation never materializes?
Actually MamMoTh I can’t imagine a benevolent God would have let you and Major Freedom argue so long, on multiple threads, so I’m beginning to crack.
Perhaps God has a sense of humor.
I seriously doubt it, at least for the Christian God.
Is there any joke in the Bible besides the miracles?
“I don’t understand this constant derision of the possibility that someone could actually think that the evidence comes down on the side of the existence of God. ”
Because the conclusion ‘aha therefore god’ is never about the existence of some abstract god, but always some particular one from some particular book. And for all of those — Jahweh, Allah, Thor — we have concrete factual claims and concrete falsifiable predictions. And many, many, many of these have already been disproven. What attracts derision is the leap from ‘so perhaps there is an unmoved mover after all’ to ‘and Gabriel spake’.
Ken B., except, that has absolutely nothing to do with Hitchens’ talk and my response to it.
Go look again: I actually said in my link that I liked his argument about North Korea, and that it threw me a curve ball; I didn’t know how to respond to it, because it was so out of left field compared to how I think about things.
And so then, in response to me going out of my way to link you guys to what I thought was an interesting pro-atheist point, Ano asks rhetorically “I wonder if Bob finds any of these points convincing, and if so I guess it’s just a test from God”. Hitchens wasn’t talking about Jesus, he was talking about a general monotheistic omnipotent God. And he thought his musings on North Korea showed why the existence of that type of God would be horrible, if true.
So I say that that particular argument was a good one, as far as it went, and then I’m getting sarcastic remarks from people wondering why I don’t just grapple with these ideas rationally.
You guys are like Daniel Kuehn on a bad day, defending Krugman. Krugman could say, “Pig iron production went down in 2011, therefore Mises was wrong,” and I could say that doesn’t really work. Then DK would say, “Terrible argument Bob, Lord Keynes over at his blog on numerous occasions has shown the flaws of ABCT. Man you Austrians can’t argue.”
When DK does something like that in response to my discussion of Krugman, most people object. Yet if I point out that Hitchens hasn’t disproven the existence of God, people flip out and think I’m changing the subject.
I was answering a more general question Bob. The one you asked. You didn’t ask about the Hitch talk or your response to it. You asked about “this constant derision”. That refers to regular, repeated derision over a protracted period, and in more contexts. Any answer to that must be more general than one about this particular case.
My answer is directly on point to the question of why there is ‘constant derision’.
*sigh* OK Ken, we’ll do it your way. On this specific instance of the “constant derision,”, I think you’re agreeing that I’m right. And I am then talking about similar such incidents, going back years of me talking about this stuff on my blog. I try to present rational arguments for why I believe this stuff, and people just keep saying, “Heh my name’s Bob, I just have faith man, that’s why I believe. God gave me a brain but doesn’t want me to use it, that’s the Murphy Motto on Christianity dude.”
Rather a backhanded way to admit your mistake Bob, but as a practitioner of back-handed compliments I can hardly complain.
Yes I am agreeing you are partly right. I am supplying an answer to your question.
I actually even agree that Hitch didn’t disprove the existence of god in that clip. Of course what he was talking about wan’t the existence of god, but whether there’s reasons to believe in god, and whether we should want there to be a god.
You epitomize your critics thus: “[Bob says] I just have faith man, that’s why I believe” I think that’s a fair characterization of many of the complaints against your position, but you underestimate the case we build for just that claim. You base many arguments on the Bible. The whole argument-from-martyrs for example. But on what do you base your faith in the Bible? Not on critical scholarship and careful examination of the text’s history. [cf our Pericope Adulterae exchanges]. You base it on faith.
Ken, for the record, I am admitting nothing wrong. I am referring to a “constant derision” that has in fact existed. If you want to interpret that as a backhanded compliment to you, go ahead; I’m sure it makes for a sunny living.
Bob your error was in misreading my response. You seem now to realize it was indeed a response to the question you asked, not to the specifics of the Hitch thing.
You have misread me again though. I said you made a backhanded *admission* not a backhanded compliment. That’s black letter. I remarked that as a practitioner of one of the backhanded arts — backhanded compliments — I have little grounds for complaint. I did not say you had paid me or anyone a backhanded compliment.
OK Ken you’re right, I misread the part about the backhanded stuff. I thought you were saying I was a master of backhanded compliments; I confess I stopped reading carefully when I say your initial premise was that I had admitted you were right.
I don’t want to have this debate right now Ken. I understand you think my arguments for Christianity are weak. That’s fine. What I don’t like is people claiming that I have no arguments, or that I don’t try to grapple with the opposition. It was particularly ironic to hear that, when I went out of my way to link to Hitchens and said I thought he made a good point from his POV.
Why do you trust the Bible? In particular can you give a good argument for the reliability of the canonical books in preference to the non-canonical ones, and justify why you accept some stuff that seems late and ahistorical like the woman taken in adultery? I’m not after a book length answer, but you seem to dismiss the argument that I and others make that ultimately you accept the Bible because your religion tells you to rather than accepting your religion because a disapassionate examination reveals the Bible to be the one authoritative source.
Bob: Ok we’ll put this off to some more convenient time. Have a nice weekend. PLUS I understand your reaction. Mine is that I object being lumped with Egoist! You do seem to conflate all critics when you get annoyed. (I think you will find me a much more well armed opponent.)
Geez – your accounts of my commenting are as ridiculous as your Krugman Kontradictions!
Also – I don’t think there’s all that much wrong with ABCT, I just wonder how prominent an explanation of the BC it actually is.
I must say Daniel the more I read this blog the more sensible you seem. I get that impression mostly from reading the attacks on you! 🙂
I thought his account of your commenting was bang on.
And the fact that you said his Krugman Kontradictions are ridiculous, is just an expected consequence of your approach.
I’ll take that as a compliment. It’s like telling a girl, “Man, you’re as ugly as Natalie Portman.”
Aw man! You just had to go mentioning religion outside of the bounds of your Sunday posts, didn’t you?
Hitchens – completely unconvincing, even to atheists.
Wow I had to stop it. I thought it was almost over but 10 minutes is a long time when you listen to a guy straw man himself.
Why do you say that?
Because Hitchens wasn’t disproving the existence of God. He was explaining why he didn’t like about the idea of God.
Exactly. Hitch generally argues there is no god and it’s a good thing too. This bit was all about the good thing too part.
Adam Kokesh needs to be thrown out of the liberty movement (i.e ostracized) after this pathetic display:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh7mwg1rI6g
This is not the first time he has “called out” Lew. And he done the same to Murray Rothbard.
This meathead is little more than a belligerent loudmouth, attention-seeking ignoramus.
I thought he made a lot of valid points.
Meh. Lew and Ron are far less militant in their tactics than Kokesh. Whereas AK sees resolute and constant and loud opposition to any perceived injustice or slight as the epitome of radicalism, most others see it as jackassery. It doesn’t take a radical to get yourself thrown out of a republican convention on a technicality by some costumed thug, and doing so is in no way the mark of a radical.
This is really about behavior. AK doesn’t want to behave because he can’t stand the people at the RNC. The campaign wants its delegates to behave because it shuts down one of the ways in which the RNC can sabotage them.
As much as I would enjoy seeing masses of RP delegates shouting “Sieg Heil” and “the whole world is watching” during the Romney speech, that’s probably not the best way to get the mainstream of the GOP to be open to the idea of private neighborhoods and sound money in the future. Like Lew Rockwell, I would stress proper decorum.
I would hope there’s room for more than one approach to Libertarianism. Each individual can listen to Adam Kokesh’s arguments, and also read Lew Rockwell’s recommendations… after that they can individually make up their own mind on the best approach.
Adam Kokesh and Lew Rockwell both make valuable contributions and they are quite different. So what? Diversity is what we stand for.
I think AK and LR should settle this through arm wrestling.
A gentlemanly passtime if ever there was one.
But differences of opinion don’t need to be “settled”, being different is OK.
This is totally unrelated, but I have to copy a quote from Greek Default Watch, because Nikos hit right on the mark with this one:
“Greece has changed from being a fat kid that was going on a diet to a fat kid that wants to sue the candy company.”
BTW Bob, let me thank and commend you for fighting the good fight in the land of my birth.
We need all the help we can get.
I’ve never written anything about Mordor…?
Confidentiality agreement?
Je suis Canadien.
I thought you guys were supposed to be nice? Have we all been misinformed?
Like totally eh.
“I actually did like his argument about North Korea. It’s a viewpoint so foreign from mine that it’s hard for me to even formulate a response.”
Oh, how quickly we forget the days of yore (aka Blogger):
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/11/is-the-christian-god-a-tyrant.html
I was the one you were responding to. I remember answering both your objections in one fell swoop by clarifying that I was responding to the theoretical argument that someone (partucularly an an-cap, or other person ostensibly against totalitarianism) ‘needs’ or ‘wishes’ for the Abrahimic god to exist, or being happy that such a god does exist.
In other posts I remember arguing with our old friend fundamentalist over the point of revelations in China, too.