04 Nov 2012

Ricky Gervais’ Non Sequitur

Religious 181 Comments

On Facebook someone posted this:

In a quip that surely was only funny in my own head, I commented, “Fortunately for atheist libertarians, there has only been one group in human history who think they have a blueprint for a just society. Otherwise this witty barb could be turned against them.”

This is yet another example of an anti-religious argument that would be patently absurd if we switched to something in which the chuckling atheist did believe. For example: Throughout human history there have been 3000 different conceptions of property rights. When I hear someone say he believes in property, I say, “Which kind?” He’s almost as big a believer in Proudhon as I am; he disbelieves in 2999 types of property, I disbelieve in 3000.

This should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: If the atheist reading this wants to answer by saying, “No but Bob, I can give you good reasons for why I hold all of my particular beliefs on slavery, the laws of nature, just forms of government, the proper treatment of women, etc. etc. even though there have been all sorts of people thinking differently throughout history…whereas you can’t give me a good argument for believing in your God,” then you’ve missed the point here. Ricky Gervais’ argument is adding absolutely nothing to your position. The reason you think I shouldn’t believe in God, is that you think there is no good evidence for it. Fine.

But the fact that other people throughout history have believed in a supernatural being, is not a good argument against the existence of such a being. In fact, it’s prima facie evidence for it. It’s really astounding that atheists think the universal (at a cultural level, not individual) belief in a higher power, is somehow supposed to be a trump card showing that there must not be a higher power. That would be akin to someone claiming that there must not really be anything wrong with murder, because every society has had different definitions of and punishments for it.

181 Responses to “Ricky Gervais’ Non Sequitur”

  1. P.S. Huff says:

    What you say makes sense. But it will take a powerful theodicy argument to reconcile the goodness of God with the existence of Facebook.

  2. Maurizio says:

    I think this is insighful in the first part.

    But I think the second part is wrong. The masses’ belief in a high power is not (even prima facie) evidence for the existence of a high power, because the masses’ belief is only reliable when there is a selection mechanism which discards false beliefs and rewards true beliefs. But in this case no such thing is happening: it is clear that such beliefs are not promoted because of their truth.

    Interestingly, something similar happens for economic theories. A theory which is false but whose implications are useful for politicians will win over a true theory which has opposite implications.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Oh what the heck: Maurizio what would it mean in your metaphysical view to say that people can universally gain from believing in a false theory? It’s not good to know the truth? Now that you “see the light” about the non-existence of God, you wish you didn’t know that?

      • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

        It could be a case of radical ignorance. In many cases, and more in the past than now, we simply don’t know what the “truth” is. We have theories about the truth, each persuasive (and unpersuasive) in its own way, but we don’t necessarily always know the truth, or even where to look for it. In the past, it could be that alternative explanations for different things were unpersuasive as compared to religion.

        • Egoist says:

          Is it a truth that “we simply don’t know what the “truth” is”?

          If you’re consistent, you’d have to say no. If you do say no, then what you said can be wrong, and hence we simply can know what the truth is.

          • Z says:

            He’s not saying we never know what the truth is, he’s just saying in this case. there is no logical fallacy here.

      • Maurizio says:

        Bob,

        I don’t quite get your point but I’ll attempt to reply.

        All I am saying is: not all beliefs are selected (and replicate in our brains) because of their truth. Some beliefs are selected for other qualities which are predominant. Are you denying this? So how do you explain Keynesianism?

        It’s not good to know the truth?

        I am not saying it’s not good to know Austrianism. I am only saying that the success of Keynesianism is not due to its truth, but to other properties. The reason why it replicates in people’s brains more than Austrianism is not that is it closer to the truth.

        Now that you “see the light” about the non-existence of God, you wish you didn’t know that?

        I don’t see how this is a response to what I said, anyway… suppose I wished I believed in God. Would that be absurd? I don’t see why. Actually I am not even sure if I’d rather believe in God. It’s not under my control anyway.

        • Egoist says:

          The reason why it replicates in people’s brains more than Austrianism is not that is it closer to the truth.

          If other people believe in things, not because they are justifiable according to rational foundations, i.e. truth, but because those beliefs serve their own narrow “whimsical” interests, then am I not justified in doing whatever I want to them, not because my actions are justifiable according to rational foundations, but because of my actions serve my own narrow whimsical interests?

          • Maurizio says:

            I am not saying that people believe X because it is useful. In fact this is impossible. People can only believe something because they find it convincing; because it makes sense to them; because it is the best explanation that they know for something.

            So I am not saying that people believe X because X serves their narrow interest (the premise of your argument).

            My position is: people believe X because they find it convincing. But the reason they find it convincing is that : 1) the errors in X were not explained to them, and they were not able to spot them by themselves; and 2) that a better theory Y was not taught to them; and the reason why Y was not taught to them is that X is more useful to men in power.

            • Egoist says:

              There are many erroneous ideas, Maurizio.

              If people are convinced of erroneous idea X, rather than erroneous idea Y, because their teachers, who are now tacitly included in your response, were convinced of erroneous idea X rather than erroneous idea Y, then why did their teachers become convinced of erroneous idea X rather than erroneous idea Y?

              You can’t keep going back in time via the “student -> teacher -> teacher of teacher -> teacher of teacher of teacher -> etc” infinite chain to explain why a certain set of erroneous ideas exist in that chain versus some other set of erroneous ideas.

              It’s not a good enough explanation for why other erroneous ideas where not taught to a given student in a student -> teacher chain link.

              In other words, you have to ask why are erroneous ideas X being taught from teacher to student, and why aren’t erroneous ideas Y being taught from teacher to student?

              • Maurizio says:

                If people are convinced of erroneous idea X, rather than erroneous idea Y, because their teachers, who are now tacitly included in your response, were convinced of erroneous idea X rather than erroneous idea Y, then why did their teachers become convinced of erroneous idea X rather than erroneous idea Y?

                Because those that are not convinced of Y do not become teachers as much as those who are convinced of X. in other words: those who are convinced of Y get more funding, and are more subsidized by the government, than those who are convinced by Y. So, after a few generations, there are many teachers teaching X and very little teaching Y.

              • Egoist says:

                Because those that are not convinced of Y do not become teachers as much as those who are convinced of X. in other words: those who are convinced of Y get more funding, and are more subsidized by the government, than those who are convinced by Y. So, after a few generations, there are many teachers teaching X and very little teaching Y.

                Yes, you wrote:

                A theory which is false but whose implications are useful for politicians will win over a true theory which has opposite implications.”

                Why would the set of erroneous ideas X be more useful to politicians than the set of erroneous ideas Y?

              • Maurizio says:

                Why would the set of erroneous ideas X be more useful to politicians than the set of erroneous ideas Y?

                because X implies that politicians have a legitimate function in this world, whereas Y implies they don’t.

                It is all about the implications of X and Y. I thought I was stating the obvious.

                To sum up: both believers in X and believers in Y are in good faith; i.e. both groups _genuinely_ believe X or Y. All teachers believe what they teach. Nonetheless, after a few generations, theory X has spread and theory Y has almost disappeared in the minds of the people, all because of government subsidies.

                (BTW, why are you assuming that both X and Y are erroneous? The assumption seems superfluous. My statement holds regardlessly of the the truth of X and Y.)

              • Egoist says:

                because X implies that politicians have a legitimate function in this world, whereas Y implies they don’t.

                Why would the statesmen care about having a legitimate function in the world, as opposed to no legitimate function?

                Why don’t they just accept erroneous set of ideas Y, and abandon their statist actions in favor of non-statist actions?

                What difference does it make to them?

              • Maurizio says:

                Why would the statesmen care about having a legitimate function in the world, as opposed to no legitimate function?

                Why don’t they just accept erroneous set of ideas Y, and abandon their statist actions in favor of non-statist actions?

                Because then they’d have to find a real job. Less power and less money.

                (I don’t see where you are going with this so I keep responding 🙂 )

              • Egoist says:

                I don’t see where you are going with this so I keep responding

                Don’t worry, we’re almost there…I think.

                Because then they’d have to find a real job. Less power and less money.

                Why would politicians want more money and more power, rather than less money and less power?

                Would you say it has something to do with their self-interest?

              • Maurizio says:

                Why would politicians want more money and more power, rather than less money and less power?

                Because those that don’t want power are discarded. There is a selection process which discards politicians who don’t act that way. After a few “generations” the only politicians that remain are those that seek power. The opposite strategy is self-defeating.

              • Egoist says:

                Because those that don’t want power are discarded.

                Why would people want money and power?

                There is a selection process which discards politicians who don’t act that way.

                Why does the selection process in the state run that way, as opposed to the reverse, in which those who want power and money are discarded?

        • Gene Callahan says:

          “All I am saying is: not all beliefs are selected (and replicate in our brains) because of their truth. Some beliefs are selected for other qualities which are predominant.”

          Maurizio, you only think that because it was selected for, not because it is true.

          • Bob Murphy says:

            Ha ha nice try Gene, but like Marx, the atheist libertarians are able to step outside of the epistemology that they ascribe to their opponents.

            • Christopher says:

              Well, isn’t that the case for every epistemology.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

              • Bob Murphy says:

                I don’t think so, Christopher. I can say, “I believe such-and-such, even though to ‘prove’ it I need to resort to asserted axioms, but I think my axioms are more plausible than yours.” There’s nothing contradictory about that statement. But if I say, “Those Christians don’t actually believe things because they’re true, it’s just because they give pleasurable effects for being in that brain state and it ‘feels true’ to them,” then why would I think any of my beliefs are true?

              • Maurizio says:

                Bob, you seem to have interpreted my position as a much more extreme than it is. Please read my response to Gene below. I am not denying that people believe things because they find it convincing. I am surprised that you consider this somehow an atheistic position.

          • Maurizio says:

            Gene, if I am contradicting myself I would like to know.

            So far I don’t see a contradiction.

            Here is my position:

            1) people can only believe X because they find X convincing. i.e. because X is the best explanation that they know for something.

            2) but, often, the reason why they believe X is that (A) they haven’t been able to spot the error in X, and (B) better theories Y have not been presented to them. And the reason why Y has not been presented to them is that X has implications that are more useful to men in power, so they subsidize the teaching of X and not that of Y. i.e., X is more fit for survival than Y.

            So, people believe X both because they find it convincing, and because X was selected for. Both things are true at the same time.

            If you see a contradiction, please help me spot it. I am interested in finding it. I mean it. Thank you.

            • Egoist says:

              Keep going.

              Why do people want power and money such that they are “selected” by the political process?

  3. Daniel Kuehn says:

    Aha – but if you believe that things like property rights are social constructions this poses little problem for you! It’s only crazy natural rights type people that are tied up with the religious argument (and that should be tied up with religious arguments – natural rights are a lot like deities in that sense).

    Anyway “believe in” is a little odd in this sense. You can acknowledge the existence of other forms of property rights but when you say “believe in” what you’re asking them is “what form of property rights do you advocate”. Most theists (not all) when they say that they only “believe in” the one God, are saying that he’s the only one that exists.

    Proudhonians should have no trouble acknowledging that other property rights arrangements have existed.

    • rayray says:

      So you’re denying the existence of rights altogether.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        No, that’s dumb.

        I probably have a different view of the sense in which they exist than a lot of people here, though.

        • Ken B says:

          You gonna go all Landsburg on us Daniel? Property rights exist, therefore the world is made out of them?

      • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

        Since I think I’m close enough to Daniel’s position here, I’d say it’s more about changing the definition of the word “right” to account for how they’re developed.

    • skylien says:

      Though I agree with the overall point of Bob, I guess I agree with Daniel on this one… Property rights arrangements are not a good analogy to prove Bob’s counter argument.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      It’s a good thing then that we already have our marvelous English common law system of contract and property rights which everyone already understands and operates under despite their simultaneous religious belief in the magical powers of the state that they learned in government schools.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        Funny, I learned about common law in public school, and they didn’t tell me anything about magic.

        Tell me more about this magic.

        If government were magic I might have to reconsider my current anti-statist stance.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          The magic: Unpayable government debt and spending plus prodigious fiat funny money dilution causes prosperity.

          Building bombers by the thousands and using them for the mass fire bombing of cities causes prosperity.

          I could go on, but what would be the point?

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            re: “I could go on, but what would be the point?”

            A question I wish you’d consider more carefully every time you comment…

          • Ken B says:

            “I could go on, but what would be the point?”

            Amusement for those with a cruel streak?

        • Bob Roddis says:

          Posted by dkuehn at 10:34 PM

          Does it say something about me or about Austrians that I lost respect for George Noory when I found out he thinks fiat money is a scam?

          http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-question.html

        • Bob Roddis says:

          DKuehn says:

          Glenn Greenwald bothers me in a really deep, genuine way…

          http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/04/glenn-greenwald-bothers-me-in-really.html

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            Dude, I appreciate the highlight reel. This is all solid gold material. But I don’t think it’s very thoughtful to clutter up Bob’s post with this stuff.

            • Bob Roddis says:

              I thought I made a substantive point that we already have a perfectly wonderful common law system that that everyone understands and uses in their daily lives and that you were coming around here cluttering things up with your usual obfuscations and hair-splitting. If you have a substantive critique of the common law notions of private property, contracts and the right to have your body free of various common law assaults, then make your point.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Why would you think I have a criticism to make of common law? I was quite clearly criticizing the other contention that you made.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Why would you think I have a criticism to make of common law?

                For starters,

                a) you’re a Keynesian;

                b) you don’t respect people who think fiat money is a scam; and

                c) you are hot for the drone missile attacks.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Bob I picture your brain like this great big bingo cage that you whirl around, pick random ideas out of, and then try to string together.

                This works as a game of chance, but not as a method.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Oh at first I thought you were addressing that to me. I mean, I’m still somewhat offended on behalf of Roddis, but not as much as I was offended on behalf of myself.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Oh no, Bob Murphy.

                You know my feelings on the quality of your thought and that hasn’t changed. If I need to remind you of that I’m going to start thinking that you’re fishing for compliments.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                While we’re on the topic of really large minds, I just thought I’d mention that DKuehn actually bought the DVD of Zombieland.

                http://tinyurl.com/aygpplb

              • Egoist says:

                Murphy dressed up as one once.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          We’re not going to change the minds of these people. It’s enough to get them to say their thing in public and keep a record of it for future use.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            Awww, do you keep a Daniel Kuehn file? That’s sweet – I’m flattered.

            A little J. Edgar Hoover/Gestapo of you – but I’m still flattered.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            I’m a little shocked that you didn’t share that I vindicated Rothbard in this spate of links, though. Usually I can count on that one.

            • Gamble says:

              Hi Daniel,

              In this thread you said you are anti statist yet you support FEDFRACFIAT force induced monopoly, how do hold both of these positions simultaneously?

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                With ease.

              • Egoist says:

                How does one intellectually and non-forcefully justify a non-intellectual and forceful action?

                Contradictions.

                If one wants to engage in such actions, intellectual contradictions are ipso facto required.

                Those who want to engage in such actions tend to consider logic a hindrance, and so bending and breaking it is permitted in their minds.

                In most cases, contradictions are justified by naming them “pragmatic” positions, and hope that the magic word will close the other person’s mind like Ali Baba closed the cave of wonders.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Egoist –
                There’s also the possibility that there’s no contradiction at all, I don’t need to invoke pragmatism in this case (although I’m always happy to), and “Gamble” just has a sense of the meaning of things like “statism”, “force”, “aggression”, “liberty”, etc. that are unworkable and just not worth engaging at this moment.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                The point I was making above was that folks are probably going to find it a little frustrating thinking about “DK, how can you POSSIBLY ‘BELIEVE THAT?”

                Really. Who knows? Life is a mystery. Everyone must stand alone.

              • Egoist says:

                There’s also the possibility that there’s no contradiction at all

                There either is or there isn’t, DK.

                I can legitimately argue that everyone who supports the state in some respects, but who isn’t a full fledged totalitarian society socialist, is holding at least one contradictory set of premises.

                The ultimate responsibility is on you to figure out what they are, but seeing as how you still hold them…

            • Bob Roddis says:

              That one is long and takes work to reproduce.

    • Matt Tanous says:

      “Proudhonians should have no trouble acknowledging that other property rights arrangements have existed.”

      They claim that theirs is the only just one. Your analogy still fails.

      “Aha – but if you believe that things like property rights are social constructions this poses little problem for you!”

      Yes, but you then have many other problems to sort out. Like, for instance, why it is that other property conventions are so, so bad empirically, and often are imposed through force upon unwilling individuals.

    • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

      I think you missed Murphy’s point. Suppose that you believe that only one type of property right that can possibly exist, but that there are 2,999 other theories of property rights. There’s also this other guy who doesn’t believe in property rights, and we’ll call him a property-rights denier. It’d be ridiculous for this latter person to argue that you are a property-rights denier simply because you deny the possibility of 2,999 forms of property rights, as compared to his denial of 3,000 forms. As long as you believe that property rights can exist, you can’t be a property rights denier… no matter how many other forms you deny existing.

      The analogy might be imperfect, but the point isn’t to think too deeply about property rights. It’s an illustrative example.

      • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

        And this totally was supposed to be a response to Daniel’s comment above.

      • Egoist says:

        Catalán gets it.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        I had my own issues with the analogy that had more to do with my views on property rights than anything else.

        I don’t think Gervais’s point was that Christians are pretty much atheists. I think his point was that atheism is not so hard to conceive of because Christians have the same orientation toward a lot of other claims about gods.

        If anything, the atheist is in a stronger position because most American atheists know Christianity and its claims a heck of a lot better than the average American Christian knows about all the gods he has rejected.

        • Egoist says:

          I think his point was that atheism is not so hard to conceive of because Christians have the same orientation toward a lot of other claims about gods.

          It was a gotcha against theism.

          Gervais said “So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say…”.

          He didn’t say “So next time someone asks me how I can possibly be an atheist, I’ll say…”

          • Egoist says:

            Granted, in the article that this quote was taken from, he IS explaining why he is an atheist, so I agree with your interpretation.

        • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

          I think it’s a case of taking Gervais out of context. I didn’t read the article where the excerpt is from, and I’d guess that Murphy didn’t either (and, whoever posted it on Facebook might not have either).

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        Granted, if you think that’s what Gervais is saying Bob’s analogy gets a little better.

        But I really don’t think the takeaway here is “Chrstians are 2869/2870th’s atheist”.

  4. Teqzilla says:

    It’s super annoying the way Gervais has just jumbled together the gist of Mencken’s famous graveyard of the gods article with Sagan’s one less god quote and is coming across like he has crafted a rhetorical super weapon of irrefutable genius. When he starts talking about what he’ll do the next time some God botherer starts up a conversation with him you get the feeling he has that the same look of self satisfied cunning on his face that Wile E Coyote does when he unboxes the latest trap he ordered from ACME.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      I’m sure they were around before Mencken and Sagan too, though. Anyone familiar with the new atheists has heard this formula from just about all of them. What Gervais offers is delivery. This is a section of a whole round of jokes that he tells about atheism.

      • Ken B says:

        They’ve bee around since at least Lucretius as you can see the argument in De Rerum Natura. And Lucretius was just making poetry of well established ideas.

        The ‘argument from diversity’ is really an argument from humility. See that man over there with his god(s)? Aren’t his arguments a lot like yours, and aren’t they all obviously wrong? Maybe you should look at yours a bit more carefully. What makes your evidence better than his, really?

  5. Ken B says:

    “Believe in” as assent to is not synonymous with “believe in” as value or approve.

    I don’t think Homer existed. I believe in him though. I think Marx existed but I don’t believe in him.

    • skylien says:

      Homer: “I’m not normally a praying man, but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman!”

      (I know who you really meant Ken)
      😉

      • Ken B says:

        Eek. I missed this possibility of another Homer COMPLETELY!

  6. Ken B says:

    ” It’s really astounding that atheists think the universal (at a cultural level, not individual) belief in a higher power, is somehow supposed to be a trump card showing that there must not be a higher power. ”

    Universal beliefs about claims with no evidence are revealing of human psychology not ontology.

  7. Blackadder says:

    Throughout human history there have been 3000 different conceptions of property rights. When I hear someone say he believes in property, I say, “Which kind?” He’s almost as big a believer in Proudhon as I am; he disbelieves in 2999 types of property, I disbelieve in 3000.

    I was with you till you gave this example.

    • skylien says:

      Bob is still right, even if he gives a bad analogy, isn’t he?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      OK so skylien, Daniel Kuehn, and Blackadder, if they reintroduce chattel slavery tomorrow, you’re not going to think that is objectively wrong? You’re going to possibly disagree on the fruitfulness of such a move, but only in the way you might object if they announce that they were changing red traffic lights to orange?

      • Ken B says:

        I’m going to think it morally wrong. I am going to do so based in part on my understanding of how people work: people hate being slaves. It harms them. Is that ‘objective’? I’d say it’s based on evidence, and science.

        I’m curious you’d pick that example. Where did Jesus or Paul condemn it?

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Your ability to misconstrue the power of counterexamples never ceases to amaze me, Ken B.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            The counter example doesn’t do the work of countering, Bob! It suffers from precisely the same blindspots as your example! Why would you expect a different reaction?

            Ken B and I aren’t anti-property rights. You know that. You have to understand that the difference of opinion here is in metaphysical attributes that (in our opinion) you’ve loaded up onto institutions, not our stance towards those institutions.

            • Ken B says:

              Exactly.

            • Matt Tanous says:

              “Ken B and I aren’t anti-property rights.”

              Except for your support for theft by the state, fraudulent printing of titles to money, eminent domain, imposition of “regulation” over the use of private property, and so on.

              So, basically, you are for private property – until you aren’t.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Don’t forget I LOVE killing innocent children with robots.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                (or so I’m told)

              • Ken B says:

                DK: “Don’t forget I LOVE killing innocent children with robots.”

                Here we differ. I prefer the hands-on, tactile feel of doing it myself.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Q: What’s worse than 100 dead babies nailed to a tree?

              • Ken B says:

                99 of them.

                (We can go on like this all day Mr Roddis.)

              • Egoist says:

                DK’s response is what is expected when a tectonic plate sized fault is exposed in one’s premises.

                Ken B’s response is what is expected when someone disagrees with Murphy.

                Both DK and Ken B will almost certainly continue to cover up the weaknesses of their positions by saying what is expected from my responses.

              • Ken B says:

                OOPS. I mean Mr Tanous. Sorry Bob R.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                HA – the answer I know is “one baby nailed to 100 trees”

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Egoist – I talk about this crap all the time. I guarantee you, I’m not hiding something. I’m just not doing this in this particular thread.

                You should have picked a thread where Ken B and I are having less fun doing other things.

              • Ken B says:

                Yeah Egoist’s comment is in the wrong place. Anyway Egoist I answered Bob’s alleged susbtance briefly and pithily in 2 early comments. Scroll up. And DK smacked Bob down on the ‘objective’ thing.

              • Egoist says:

                DK, I am sure you do write about this all the time.

                Doesn’t mean your position is contradiction free.

              • Egoist says:

                Neither of you two are seemingly able to grasp the point Murphy made.

                I am an atheist, and yet I understood it!

                It’s exceedingly obvious. Scroll down to the bottom to see what you are missing.

      • skylien says:

        You said “When I hear someone say he believes in property…”, then I understood that you implied the possibility that there are people like in the case with god who say “I do not believe in property at all” which is not possible of course. You cannot not believe in the existence of property or called differently “control”.

        I realize now after rereading that this was possibly a misunderstanding of your analogy of my part. You only refer to Proudhonists, but not to people who do not believe in property per se…

        So I stand corrected your analogy is fine! Only the introduction is a bit strange…

        • skylien says:

          OMG… I should sometimes reread more carefully!

          Are you implying with your analogy that Proudhon’s ideas do not constitute a property arrangement or are fundamental anti property?

          • Bob Murphy says:

            I was taking Proudhon’s famous “property is theft” to be analogous to someone who doesn’t believe in God.

            • Ken B says:

              Thereby missing Proudhon’s both point and his brilliant joke. Which is odd as I am sure that, unseduced by an imagined opportunity to score one for the god team, you get them both perfectly. But your desired analogy depends on missing both.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                I really do better understand the justice of God’s plan after spending time with you, Ken B. At first it seems cruel to put a person in hell for eternity, just because he didn’t accept his flaws and need for a savior. But now I see that God is just giving everyone exactly what he or she wants. I want to bask in the presence of an infinitely wise and good Being, whereas you want to stand aloof and say, “That guy’s not that smart. Ten plagues? I would’ve had Pharaoh letting those people go after eight.”

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Bob, I think that was the funniest version of “go to hell” I’ve ever read!

              • Egoist says:

                You are ignoring the logic of Gervais’ argument, which is that choosing to accept one principle in a sea of principles of the same class, is a weakness of your position.

                Gervais says that believing in one God is a weak position because there are many Gods in the class of God.

                Well, according to that, then believing in one property rights is weak for the same reason, because there are many property rights systems in the class of property rights.

                If you don’t think your position is any weaker than it already is because you chose one among many, then neither is the theist’s position any weaker than it already is because they chose one God among many.

                Your head.

              • Egoist says:

                No idea why “Your head” is there.

            • skylien says:

              Hm, he also said “property is freedom”.

              Whatever he said, if property is just understood as “control” it is clear that you cannot be against control per se. Whoever eats the apple, is in control of the apple hence it is his property.

              Being against property is like being against facial expressions… You may favor this or that expression but there is always an expression. Whatever, this is beside the point of your analogy. Basically it stands.

          • Matt Tanous says:

            “PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.” – Proudhon

            So, yeah.

            • skylien says:

              I think he said lots of things about property that basically produces more confusion than anything else, since everybody can find a fitting quote for his world view in Prouhon.

              Though I have to admit I only know quotes from him so far. I have not yet read him directly..

        • Marc says:

          I don’t see why Gervais’ ridiculous argument even needs an analogy. If Gervais said that to me, I would simply ask, “So you’re saying I am an atheist because I don’t believe in all of history’s gods?” At best, he’s bringing an argument of semantics. But since when is atheism a measure of how little gods you believe in, and religion a measure of how many? Quite a childish way of looking at it.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        I’m going to declare fervently that is wrong and wax philosophical about what “objective” really means in the context of human society.

        Let’s please not go down this “if you don’t believe all this is objective truth you’re not rejecting it” road. It’s usually very ugly and condescending.

        We as a society really need to get past this disposition that if you’re not entirely on board with Platonism you’re giving slavery and such a green light. The objection is not to the “slavery […] is wrong” part. The objection is to the “[…] objectively […]” part.

        • Ken B says:

          Exactly. Nice to see you too apparently don’t see the awesome power of counterexamples to theses that were never propunded!

        • Bob Murphy says:

          DK wrote:

          We as a society really need to get past this disposition that if you’re not entirely on board with Platonism you’re giving slavery and such a green light. The objection is not to the “slavery […] is wrong” part. The objection is to the “[…] objectively […]” part.

          OK so you are saying it wouldn’t be objectively wrong to reinstitute human slavery. That’s understandable, there are lots of decent people who don’t believe in objective morality. For such people, my analogy wasn’t a great one; I should’ve stuck to models of the solar system or something like that.

          But most of my FB friends who loved the Gervais picture, probably think their view of property rights is objectively correct. Or at least, that there is such a thing as objectively correct views on what is and is not aggression.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            Well, even models of the solar system are useful fictions, but yes – the anti-Platonists tend to start dropping like flies when you move in that direction.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            I have been bad about getting caught up in a completely different tangent.

            I do think Gervais’s argument holds weight, though. These gods didn’t emerge out of empirical evidence. Or if they did (if these gods actually did appear in the past to people), people don’t believe them now because of that. They believe it now because of social selection and heredity. That’s easy for people to miss when they live in the United States. Atheism or agnosticism are unthinkable to a lot of people, but when they realize the sort of company God keeps among other gods I think it should lead them to more critically ask why they believe in specific ontological claims about God (not just whether your faith has made a real impact on your life -that’s almost certainly true, but it’s evidence for something else).

            It’s very hard, when you consider the pantheon of gods out there, why any one person holds their view of god except for their social context. Just acknowledging that would be very valuable.

            Now you in the past have had some interesting tendencies to say things like you don’t know if Islam or Hinduism are untrue, etc. I think that’s a more tenable tact to take as well.

            I’ve said in the past that I ascribe a probability to god existing somewhere in the low teens. But the point is that I doubt that that god – if he exists – is one that is exclusively identified in all the tales that religious people tell.

            Another way to think about it is this: if you abandon all the specific stories that people tell about God and just say “I think there’s some greater force out there”, then you’ve diffused a lot of Gervais’s point. You’ve reduced his 2700 down to one common denominator.

            I still think there’s not a lot of evidence for it – but the idea that we are just seeing 2700 ways of describing the same phenomenon is far more convincing than what most theists argue.

            HOWEVER – that wasn’t your argument in this post. I still don’t find the argument in this post very convincing.

            • Egoist says:

              I do think Gervais’s argument holds weight, though.

              DK, you are putting words in Gervais’ mouth. Nothing of what you said after this statement is in the picture Murphy linked to.

              You say Gervais’ argument holds weight, and yet the argument you explained in your last post is nowhere to be found in Gervais’ actual quote.

              Seems like you do with Gervais what you do with Krugman. You defend people whose worldviews you agree with, by attributing to them arguments that are in your own mind, rather than what they actually make, and saying yes, aha, they’re right.

              Can you not see that? Look at what you just said in your prior post. Then look at the picture above. Notice that they are vastly different?

      • Blackadder says:

        OK so skylien, Daniel Kuehn, and Blackadder, if they reintroduce chattel slavery tomorrow, you’re not going to think that is objectively wrong?

        Obviously I need to be less subtle in my attempts at humor.

        • Ken B says:

          “You lost me at hello.”

        • Egoist says:

          I was with you till you gave this example.

          How in the heck is that comment a joke? That’s what Murphy responded to.

          Egads.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Blackadder, if you were making a joke because you thought my logic was so airtight that only a fool could not see the power of my analogy, then my apologies.

  8. David K. says:

    I’m not a religious believer, but Gervais’ argument might well be the worst argument ever made.

    • Z says:

      I’ve seen this argument many times. I think Dawkins also makes this same exact argument.

  9. joeftansey says:

    “It’s really astounding that atheists think the universal (at a cultural level, not individual) belief in a higher power, is somehow supposed to be a trump card showing that there must not be a higher power”

    Well, it’s a good thing the picture doesn’t say that.

    It’s meant to show that atheists and christians both “get it right” most of the time. We don’t believe in 2999 other theologies because we see they’re clearly absurd. It’s just statistically strange that after 2999 failures, you’d find one success in the arcane pile of ancient writings.

    And let’s be honest, the reason you have picked out this one religion is probably because you have not studied the other 2999 as deeply, and Christianity is the most popular American religion. Selection bias all the way.

    • Matt Tanous says:

      “It’s just statistically strange that after 2999 failures, you’d find one success in the arcane pile of ancient writings.”

      Why? Is it statistically strange to go through 2999 failures to describe how gravity works before stumbling upon Newton (or Einstein) getting it right?

      Whether Christianity is right or wrong, the “argument from statistics” is absurd – a clear example of the reverse gambler’s fallacy (I’ve not rolled a seven yet, so I never will, obviously).

      • joeftansey says:

        “Why? Is it statistically strange to go through 2999 failures to describe how gravity works before stumbling upon Newton (or Einstein) getting it right?”

        Of course. But this is why I qualified my statement with “arcane pile of ancient writings”. I don’t think 2999 failures by crazed acolytes changes the probability that Newton can be correct. But it does cast serious doubts on crazed-acolyte #3000.

        “Whether Christianity is right or wrong, the “argument from statistics” is absurd – a clear example of the reverse gambler’s fallacy (I’ve not rolled a seven yet, so I never will, obviously).”

        It’s a conditional probability. I.e. what’s the probability that we will find the truth in a pile of garbage given that we have already found 2999 samples in a row devoid of truth content. If you look outside the garbage, the conditional argument no longer applies.

        • Ken B says:

          This is correct, but it misses the real force of the argument from diversity, which is can you give a good reason why your reasons are better? And believers never can: they cite legends and books and shapes in the clouds while rejecting other legends, other books, other shapes in other clouds. The arguemtn is about *standards of evidence* and the willingness to check them.

          • Egoist says:

            This is correct, but it misses the real force of the argument from diversity, which is can you give a good reason why your reasons are better?

            THIS comment misses the real force of the argument Murphy made.

            He is saying that IF one adheres to Gervais’ argument as a valid gotcha argument against theism, then the SAME LOGIC, when applied to other topics, such as property rights, would logically require you to accept it as a valid gotcha argument against it too.

            Murphy used the example of property rights, but there are many more.

            The main point is that if the theist’s position is made weaker by the existence of other Gods that have been written about throughout the ages, then THAT SAME LOGIC AS IT STANDS, would make your property rights position weaker by the existence of other property rights systems that have been written about throughout the ages.

            This point has gone over your head.

          • Matt Tanous says:

            ” And believers never can: they cite legends and books and shapes in the clouds while rejecting other legends, other books, other shapes in other clouds.”

            Well, with regards to whether the reasons are “better”, the point is debatable. But writers like C.S. Lewis did not “cite legends” – they gave reasoned arguments as to why they accepted one god as THE God.

            • Ken B says:

              I’m pretty sure CS Lewis quoted Luke and John.

        • Egoist says:

          I don’t think 2999 failures by crazed acolytes changes the probability that Newton can be correct.

          How about 2999 failures by level headed scientists?

          You are just using rhetoric of “crazed acolytes” because the logic of your position is weak, and you know it.

          • Bob Murphy says:

            I appreciate your attempt at evenhandedness Egoist, but go re-read my initial post. Not only was the point “implicit,” I went out of my way to say, “Now if you want to distinguish gods from other things, by saying you have a good reason for your beliefs but I don’t have a good reason for my belief in God, then that’s a totally separate argument…”

            So you should spare yourself the trouble of hammering this point. Ken B. et al. willfully refuse to see it. You can’t make them see it.

            • Ken B says:

              Bob, I answered quite directly your implication that the (alleged) universality of the belief in the supernatural is probative about reality. It is probative about human psychology.

              I pointed out quite directly your equivocation on “believe”.

              • Egoist says:

                Paging Dr. Freud.

            • Egoist says:

              I strongly suspect they can’t see it because they are too afraid to even posit it; and what that would imply in their minds regarding their own convictions.

              Is it because they need the logic of Gervais’ argument in some way? Is it because for many years they themselves have always thought it was a gotcha argument against theism, totally missing the fact that the same logic would undercut their own convictions to the extent that they are but one choice in a class of like choices?

            • Ken B says:

              Let me also add you made a positive claim: “In fact, it’s prima facie evidence for it.” That is what I’m disputing Bob: that you can turn RG’s arguemnt around to serve your ends.

              • Egoist says:

                As opposed to ignoring RG’ actual argument to serve your own ends?

          • joeftansey says:

            “How about 2999 failures by level headed scientists?”

            A bullet I am more than willing to bite. But my point is that I would not lump the scientists in with people making random guesses if I were trying to figure out the probability that our 3000th scientist would be correct.

            “You are just using rhetoric of “crazed acolytes” because the logic of your position is weak, and you know it.”

            No. I mean, exclude all the non-insane religions from the pile if you want. Let open-minded deism be exempt from “the great write-off”.
            But there’s a strong qualitative difference between modern scientists and a religion built upon oral tradition claiming that pork is metaphysically tainted because it comes from an animal with a divided hoof.

            • Egoist says:

              A bullet I am more than willing to bite. But my point is that I would not lump the scientists in with people making random guesses if I were trying to figure out the probability that our 3000th scientist would be correct.

              OK, how about instead of “random guesses”, there were “painstakingly thought out, critiqued and analyzed propositions”?

              Would you bite that bullet too? Can you not see what you are doing?

              I’m not a racist, but…I have read a few theological texts, and in some of the more popular ones the authors attempt to answer the grand metaphysical questions, and you can tell they legitimately tried to come to a thought out conclusion, and that they did not just slap a pen to paper and say “God did it.”

              Your example of pork is valid in some other context. Remember, the only logic Murphy wanted to address is the logic in Gervais’ quote, in the picture above.

              Do you believe in morality? The next time someone tells me they believe in morality, I’ll ask which one. If they say just the one morality, western morality, say, then I’ll say they’re almost as amoral as I am. They don’t believe in 45,999 moralities. I don’t believe in all 46,000 (or whatever).

              • joeftansey says:

                “OK, how about instead of “random guesses”, there were “painstakingly thought out, critiqued and analyzed propositions”?

                Would you bite that bullet too? Can you not see what you are doing? ”

                Don’t you see my point? If a group sharing a certain set of traits fails 2999 times in a row, what are the odds that they’ll get it right the next try? Close to zero?

                “I’m not a racist, but…I have read a few theological texts, and in some of the more popular ones the authors attempt to answer the grand metaphysical questions, and you can tell they legitimately tried to come to a thought out conclusion, and that they did not just slap a pen to paper and say “God did it.””

                If by “more popular ones”, you mean classical religious texts, then I wholeheartedly disagree. If instead you mean philosophical religion, sure, they shouldn’t be thrown in with the lunatics.

                “Your example of pork is valid in some other context. Remember, the only logic Murphy wanted to address is the logic in Gervais’ quote, in the picture above.”

                And Gervais is lumping Christianity in with all the other religions on the assumption that they’re all prima facie insane. Gervais’ comment does not apply to a modern methodological deism.

                “Do you believe in morality? The next time someone tells me they believe in morality, I’ll ask which one. If they say just the one morality, western morality, say, then I’ll say they’re almost as amoral as I am. They don’t believe in 45,999 moralities. I don’t believe in all 46,000 (or whatever).”

                Well, in this example I’d say I believe in morality but I’m not sure which one. Maybe I could be chill with 5000 variations on a libertarian theme.

                But yeah, let’s say we both reject 99.99% of all possible ethical dogma. This is useless to point out since we have not grouped ethics in any meaningful way. Gervais’ grouping is of all the ancient dubious religions. And if we both agree that we should be skeptical of #’s 1-2999 *for the same reasons*, it’s statistically improbable that #3000 would be a legitimate exception.

              • Egoist says:

                Don’t you see my point? If a group sharing a certain set of traits fails 2999 times in a row, what are the odds that they’ll get it right the next try? Close to zero?

                Did you not see my point?

                It’s not about 3000 sequential beliefs, one after another, where each one in the chain fails, and another is proposed.

                This is about 3000 different versions, some of which are no longer believed, some of which still are, but where a person accepts only one, in the face of the other 2999.

                If picking one among many makes that choice weaker, then to whatever extent your own convictions consist of one choice among many, whether you think the alternatives are silly or not, that must make your one choice weaker as well.

                If by “more popular ones”, you mean classical religious texts, then I wholeheartedly disagree. If instead you mean philosophical religion, sure, they shouldn’t be thrown in with the lunatics.

                But you were the one who only addressed the lunatics. Can you not see how by only addressing the lunatics, you made it seem like you equated philosophical religion with lunacy, period?

                And Gervais is lumping Christianity in with all the other religions on the assumption that they’re all prima facie insane. Gervais’ comment does not apply to a modern methodological deism.

                No, you also are putting words in Gervais’ mouth. There is no such prima facie assumption in the quote. In the quote, he is saying that theists’ position is almost theist, because theists reject 1, 2, 10, 100, 1000, 2000 or whatever alternative Gods.

                Well, according to that logic, all property rights advocates are almost communists like Marx, because they reject 2999 property rights alternatives and believe in only one.

                Well, in this example I’d say I believe in morality but I’m not sure which one. Maybe I could be chill with 5000 variations on a libertarian theme.

                Suppose 4999 of them consist of you being harmed, and in only one of them you personally find you are benefited.

                But yeah, let’s say we both reject 99.99% of all possible ethical dogma. This is useless to point out since we have not grouped ethics in any meaningful way.

                So Gervais’ argument is useless to point out then? For that is what he pointed out.

                Gervais’ grouping is of all the ancient dubious religions.

                My grouping of morality is of all the ancient dubious moralities too.

                And if we both agree that we should be skeptical of #’s 1-2999 *for the same reasons*, it’s statistically improbable that #3000 would be a legitimate exception.

                So it is statistically improbable that your conviction of what’s morally right would be a legitimate exception, and you’d be obligated, by your own accord, to tend towards my disposition of amorality, of anything goes as long as one can get away with it.

              • Ken B says:

                @jft: After 2999 Egoist comments you should know better!

              • joeftansey says:

                “It’s not about 3000 sequential beliefs, one after another, where each one in the chain fails, and another is proposed.”

                It doesn’t matter if they’re in sequence or not. What matters is the overall quality of the stock. It is very low. As you sift through, you know that each candidate has a 99.99% chance of being wrong. You skip over many religions because they are prima facie absurd. Christianity should also be skipped because it too is prima facie absurd (re: the pork comment).

                “If picking one among many makes that choice weaker, then to whatever extent your own convictions consist of one choice among many, whether you think the alternatives are silly or not, that must make your one choice weaker as well.”

                It isn’t one choice among many. It’s one choice among a group of other *similar* choices. If I chose option 35 out of 1000 of other options that had similar origins and methodologies, I would have a high probability of being wrong. But if I chose 1 out of 3 options who had all born equal scrutiny and rigor, I would have a larger chance of being right.

                “But you were the one who only addressed the lunatics. Can you not see how by only addressing the lunatics, you made it seem like you equated philosophical religion with lunacy, period? ”

                No. I take it for granted that generic deists aren’t discredited by those who bear no resemblance to them.

                “No, you also are putting words in Gervais’ mouth. There is no such prima facie assumption in the quote. In the quote, he is saying that theists’ position is almost theist, because theists reject 1, 2, 10, 100, 1000, 2000 or whatever alternative Gods.”

                No. He does not say: “Consider the set of all possible gods”. He says to consider all the *historical* god-figures.

                “Well, according to that logic, all property rights advocates are almost communists like Marx, because they reject 2999 property rights alternatives and believe in only one.”

                No, because being Marxist entails a lot of other things. It would mean that I am very close to a skeptic – not knowing the answer. And I can still maintain that there is *one* correct answer (that I can’t find), whereas Marxists would claim there is no correct answer.

                “Suppose 4999 of them consist of you being harmed, and in only one of them you personally find you are benefited.”

                So what if we suppose that? And – lol – the thought experiment started out considering the set of all possible ethical systems…

                “My grouping of morality is of all the ancient dubious moralities too.”

                No it isn’t. You never qualified it like that.

                “So it is statistically improbable that your conviction of what’s morally right would be a legitimate exception, and you’d be obligated, by your own accord, to tend towards my disposition of amorality, of anything goes as long as one can get away with it.”

                Under those conditions, I would tend toward skepticism.

                And don’t try to throw the “anything goes” rhetoric in either. It doesn’t help your case…

              • Dan says:

                Ken B = troll

              • Egoist says:

                It doesn’t matter if they’re in sequence or not. What matters is the overall quality of the stock. It is very low. As you sift through, you know that each candidate has a 99.99% chance of being wrong. You skip over many religions because they are prima facie absurd. Christianity should also be skipped because it too is prima facie absurd (re: the pork comment).

                There was no assumption of sequence. There was 2860 Gods, some of which are believed today, some of which are not.

                The overall quality of the stock doesn’t matter, its the quantity, because Gervais emphasized the number of Gods. Plus he is an atheist so he would consider all Gods equally absurd.

                It isn’t one choice among many. It’s one choice among a group of other *similar* choices. If I chose option 35 out of 1000 of other options that had similar origins and methodologies, I would have a high probability of being wrong. But if I chose 1 out of 3 options who had all born equal scrutiny and rigor, I would have a larger chance of being right.

                The context was one choice among many similar choices.

                Probability of being right or wrong is a separate argument.

                No. I take it for granted that generic deists aren’t discredited by those who bear no resemblance to them.

                Then why did you say 2999 crazed acolytes out of 3000, as opposed to 2000 or 2500 crazed acolytes? You just implied that 99.99% of theists are crazy.

                No. He does not say: “Consider the set of all possible gods”. He says to consider all the *historical* god-figures.

                I didn’t say “all possible Gods” either. Why are you saying “no” like I did?

                No, because being Marxist entails a lot of other things. It would mean that I am very close to a skeptic – not knowing the answer. And I can still maintain that there is *one* correct answer (that I can’t find), whereas Marxists would claim there is no correct answer.

                Adherents to a particular would say the same thing. Their God and religion is “different”.

                And (orthodox) Marxists, contrary to your claim, do indeed believe they have the one answer.

                So what if we suppose that? And – lol – the thought experiment started out considering the set of all possible ethical systems…

                You didn’t answer the question.

                “My grouping of morality is of all the ancient dubious moralities too.”

                No it isn’t. You never qualified it like that.

                Neither did Gervais, and yet you assumed he qualified it like that.

                “So it is statistically improbable that your conviction of what’s morally right would be a legitimate exception, and you’d be obligated, by your own accord, to tend towards my disposition of amorality, of anything goes as long as one can get away with it.”

                Under those conditions, I would tend toward skepticism.

                Including being skeptical of skepticism?

                And don’t try to throw the “anything goes” rhetoric in either. It doesn’t help your case…

                Help my case? I am not trying to convince you to adhere to my morality.

                Amoralism is only one more rejection of a morality, relative to your position of rejecting all moralities except the one you adhere to.

                According to Gervais’ logic, you are almost an amoralist “anything goes” egoist like me.

              • joeftansey says:

                “There was no assumption of sequence.”

                Nonsense. You wrote: “It’s not about 3000 sequential beliefs, one after another, where each one in the chain fails, and another is proposed.”

                “The overall quality of the stock doesn’t matter, its the quantity, because Gervais emphasized the number of Gods.”

                Gervais emphasized the number of Gods because it influences the quality of the overall stock. If you think either 1 or 0 options out of 3000 are true, the stock is very poor. If it were 3 options instead, the stock would be markedly better.

                “The context was one choice among many similar choices.”

                Many similar choices that the Christian and Atheist reject *prima facie*.

                “Then why did you say 2999 crazed acolytes out of 3000, as opposed to 2000 or 2500 crazed acolytes? You just implied that 99.99% of theists are crazy.”

                Of the classical religious theists. Yes. Not modern philosophical theism, which Gervais does not comment on.

                “I didn’t say “all possible Gods” either. Why are you saying “no” like I did?”

                You wrote: “There is no such prima facie assumption in the quote. In the quote, he is saying that theists’ position is almost theist, because theists reject 1, 2, 10, 100, 1000, 2000 or whatever alternative Gods.”

                Which ignores Gervais’ key point. He does not invoke the mere possibility that there are alternative gods. He is saying that there are alternative gods that are cut from the same cloth as christianity.

                “Adherents to a particular would say the same thing. Their God and religion is “different”.”

                Following Gervais, it is absurd for them to claim this because they are ignorant of nearly all other religions.

                “And (orthodox) Marxists, contrary to your claim, do indeed believe they have the one answer.”

                I didn’t claim the contrary. I said that even if I wasn’t sure which version of property rights was correct, I could still maintain that *at least* one correct version existed, but that I just didn’t know which one it was.

                “You didn’t answer the question.”

                I am not shallow enough to base philosophy on my self interest.

                “Neither did Gervais, and yet you assumed he qualified it like that.”

                Gervais is singling out all the classical religions.

                Gervais thinks they are all dubious (this is implied when he invokes Zeus, Thor, Jupiter… obvious BS gods).

                “Including being skeptical of skepticism?”

                Not if I had a good reason to think there was an objective morality, regardless of my ability to identify it.

                “According to Gervais’ logic, you are almost an amoralist “anything goes” egoist like me.”

                No, because, like all reasonable people, I am open to the possibility that I have made a mistake. If my morality turned out to be false, I would not necessarily revert to the amoralist position. Whereas it is a core Christian claim that their religion is true and all others are false. They know this for sure. They stake everything on it. I make no such commitment in morality.

                And – as I pointed out before – you all are just trying to catch Gervais in a trivial error in his punchline. His real point in the picture is that Christians write off ancient absurd religions all the time without glancing at them. So why does Christianity pass the sneeze test and warrant a lifetime of study?

              • Ken B says:

                “Thor, … obvious BS god”

                Hey! Take that back infidel blasphemer!

              • joeftansey says:

                Look at it this way. The christian is “atheistic” in that he has is very irreverent towards other religions. He won’t even look at most of them. He gives 99.99% of religions “the atheist” treatment.

                It isn’t merely that the Christian rejects alternative religions. It is *the way* in which he rejects them – like an atheist.

        • JFF says:

          It would have been an even better statement to qualify it by saying:

          “…arcane pile of ancient writings that were predominantly derivations, reworkings, or outright copies of older piles of ancient writings.

        • Matt Tanous says:

          “I don’t think 2999 failures by crazed acolytes changes the probability that Newton can be correct. But it does cast serious doubts on crazed-acolyte #3000. ”

          Then you are assuming something categorically different about religion, and the individuals propounding it. In short, you are assuming it is wrong before you examine it.

          • joeftansey says:

            “Then you are assuming something categorically different about religion, and the individuals propounding it. In short, you are assuming it is wrong before you examine it.”

            I can’t expect you to have read through the big TLDR exchange between me and Egoist, but I explicitly said that I don’t think methodological diests are in the same camp as the ancient traditional religions.

            I mean, sure, it’s possible one of them could be correct. But if you’re going to write off 2999 of them because they don’t pass the sneeze test, well, Christianity shouldn’t pass the sneeze test either.

            (Though if for some reason you were really meticulous and went through EVERY religion with equal rigor, none of this would apply. You would be able to give a string of coherent answers about why you don’t believe in Zeus, Thor, etc.)

  10. Gamble says:

    Atheist dedicate much time proving the falsity of something that does not exist.

  11. Gamble says:

    Totally off topic but I need to vent.

    The image sharing site imgageguru has closed its doors. This is sad because just recently I learned what an incredibly valuable tool this site was in the war against statism. This site allowed me to simply and efficiently include graphs, charts and other pictures in my arguments. The site was mainly used as a photo dump for mindless garbage however a few of us recently began using this site as a political tool. I went to the site this morning and this is the message I found.

    “We have created imageguru.net thinking to help genuine people upload and use their images, We have never been moneytize and never used any advertising agency or ads in this site since we never thought of earning from this site.
    All our services was free.
    Recently we received few dmca complaints and we realized that many of the users have uploaded copyright images. So we have clean sweep whole website including script, images, and all website files.

    We have officially shutdown imageguru.net website with no intention to restart the services again.”

  12. RPLong says:

    Bob, I don’t get it. Are you suggesting that your “belief” in property rights is analogous to your “belief” in a supreme being?

    Do you think really is an equivalence between “belief in a concept” (which really just means that you rationally agree with the concept being expressed; so we could call it “agreement” rather than “belief”) and “belief in a supernatural being?

    If so, this is an important window into the psyche of believers, in my opinion. I “believe” in private property, not because “I really think it exists,” but because it is the only conception of ownership that provides a meaningful solution to property disputes. It’s hard for me to even CONCEIVE of God in a similar way. God isn’t a concept as far as I understand it. I always understood God to be a being, a creator, a supernatural overlord who works in mysterious ways. Nothing about that sounds like property rights to me.

    • Z says:

      I’m not sure of all of Bob’s exact philosophies, but I think he would say it is the same thing, because I think he holds a more natural rights or natural law type of view about morality. Actions have some sort of ‘unseen properties’ that denote whether they are moral or immoral in that point of view.

  13. Egoist says:

    Am I the only atheist here who isn’t afraid to admit that Murphy has made a cogent argument?

    His main point, which is seemingly going over the heads of the usual suspects, is that many atheists believe in principles that throughout history have had many “flavors”. He used property rights as an illustration, because most of the usual suspects here believe in it one form or another. Key words are “in one form or another”.

    For those who didn’t think Murphy make a cogent argument, ask yourselves why you believe in the particular property rights principles that you do, rather than the myriad of other forms of property rights that have been offered by political philosophers throughout the ages.

    Can you not see how if some anti-property communist used the same tactic as Gervais against you, and you think Gervais’ comment against theism is funny and valid, that the same logic would undercut your own property beliefs, if some anti-property communist said something like:

    “You believe in property rights? Oh yeah? Which one? Just the one form of property rights you believe in? Well, you’re almost as communist as me. I don’t believe in 3000 forms of property rights. You don’t believe in 2999 of them.”

    —————–

    Murphy, I am not a theist but I apologize for the incredible dimwittedness on the part of your atheist antagonizers. Your point was bloody obvious, but I guess some atheists here are so afraid, so unsure of themselves, that they make up for it with a sheer of bravado that hides a very weak intellectual structure, and this intellectual structure is so weak, that they won’t even give you this argument, lest they themselves have one less weapon in their arsenal.

    I am not afraid of giving you this argument, because I don’t need to rely on the weak types of arguments of Gervais to convince myself I chose right.

    • Egoist says:

      Morons. All of them.

    • Arthur Krolman says:

      Egoist, thanks for helping me understand Bob’s initial post (which was too subtle for me). But I think you’re brushing aside Bob’s response to you above:

      “you have a good reason for your beliefs but I don’t have a good reason for my belief in God, then that’s a totally separate argument”

      I feel I have Bob’s permission to talk about reasons now.

      1. I agree with you that Gervais’s logic is specious, but stepping back, what is Bob’s reason for objecting to those who don’t believe in a creator being? I don’t know.

      2. Here’s my reason for not supporting those who want to increase the church going population: All religions encourage self-sacrifice and discourage greed as a sin that might land you in hell. Like Gordon Gecko, I believe that greed is good for a property rights system to function properly. Greedy buyers and greedy sellers generate accurate price data to allow efficient allocation of resources for one thing. And I object to sacrificing my private property — and am suspicious of those on the receiving end of such sacrifices. Shouldn’t they sacrifice their the pile of sacrifices that they’ve accumulated? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no? The state is a partner with religions in pushing the idea of sacrifice on the population. Sacrifice your child in the time of war! Sacrifice your time for the duty of being a juror! And then from the pulpit we repeatedly hear: sacrifice is good! I object to the state and I object to the state’s supportive partners.

      On the other hand, many atheists revere the state and object to the state having any institutional competition in recruiting faithful followers. This is why they want to undermine religions and undermine the institution of the family etc. Perhaps this is what is on Bob’s mind.

      • Egoist says:

        Brushing aside the tangential concession? Or refusing to brush aside the primary argument? I guess the latter would look like the former.

        I’ll leave the rest of your post for others to respond to.

      • Matt Tanous says:

        On point two, I think what they mean by greed is different than you are taking it. Greed, to them, is a lack of willingness to help those who cannot help themselves – invalids, etc. Greed is not trying to get the best price on the market for you.

        The sacrifice is not meant to be obligatory and all encompassing – but more like the sacrifice a parent provides for a child, or a man for his friend.

        • Arthur Krolman says:

          I am willing to help those who help me. I call it “voluntary trade”. “Dear Mr. Invalid. Would you be willing to study Proudhon and help me argue better on blogs in return for a case of beer?” Is that kind of greed ok?

          “But Arthur, let’s say the invalid is deaf, dumb, blind and crippled? He is completely useless to provide any helpful product or service to his fellow man.” OK. Well, I’ll still give him a case of beer….provided that I get my picture taken for the news handing him the beer…or a handful of indulgences from the preacher. There I got something in return.

  14. joeftansey says:

    Here’s Gervais’ original piece.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

    He is very clearly talking about classical institutionalized religions, not the set of all possible theologies.

    • Egoist says:

      I didn’t say he was talking about all possible theologies either. This is a red herring, joe.

      • joeftansey says:

        I’m not addressing you here. But, you wrote:

        “In the quote, he is saying that theists’ position is almost theist, because theists reject 1, 2, 10, 100, 1000, 2000 or whatever alternative Gods.”

        To be specific, it isn’t merely alternate gods. It’s alternate *historical* gods. This is the key.

    • Ken B says:

      Gervais asks

      From what I can gather, pretty much the worst type of person you can be is an atheist. The first four commandments hammer this point home. … But what are atheists really being accused of?

      and he likens his alleged crime with that of christians:
      “… I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.”

      He’s not actually 2869/2870 as proof. He’s noting the unfairness and illogic of pretending that unbelief is a crime, when christians fully partake of the unbelief of someone else’s gods.

      • Egoist says:

        He’s noting the unfairness and illogic of pretending that unbelief is a crime, when christians fully partake of the unbelief of someone else’s gods.

        And in the process he created a NEW unfairness and illogic.

        It can be used by communists against propertarians, amoralists against moralists, etc, since, after all, propertarians and moralists fully partake in the unbelief of other people’s property and moral rules, so why not one more?

        Why are communists and amoralists held as so bad according to propertarians and moralists, Ken B? They are just doing what propertarians and amoralists do all the time: reject a whole bunch of property and moral rules of other people.

        • Egoist says:

          In other words, suppose Gervais revealed himself as an amoralist, and made a quote in the same form as the one in the picture:

          Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6,000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 moralities, of which 2870 can be considered enforceable.

          So next time someone tells me they believe in morality, I’ll say “Oh which one? Egalitarianism? Altruism? Utilitarianism? …” If they say “Just non-aggression. I only believe in the one morality,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as amoral as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 moralities, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

          Would you say aha, Gervais has a gotcha against everyone who is against rape and murder?

          • Ken B says:

            You endorse this analogy Dr Murphy?

          • RPLong says:

            I’m sort of with Ken B here. You have a point, Egoist, but I’m not sure it’s the point that was originally being advanced by Murphy.

            I could be wrong, but the way I read it involved drawing an equivalence between a religious belief and concurrance with a particular abstract concept.

            We are, after all, discussing belief in the context of things whose existence can actually be disputed. Private property, murder, etc. involve belief, to be sure, but I contend that the meaning of the word “belief” is different in each case. What do you think about that?

            • Ken B says:

              Gervais is also saying that christians *blame* him for unbelief.

              Anyway ‘amoral’ is the not the correct word here; Egoist has changed the meaning with his mutatis. “Philosophically uncommitted to any theory of morality” would be closer.

              • Egoist says:

                Anyway ‘amoral’ is the not the correct word here; Egoist has changed the meaning with his mutatis.

                “Philosophically uncommitted to any theory of morality” would be closer.

                I have to change the mutatis because I am using the same logic in a different scenario.

                If the mutatis were to be completely unaffected, then no analogy would be possible. I would be limited to the original argument that has a unique mutatis.

                Besides, “Philosophically uncommitted to any theory of morality” is pretty much the commonly accepted definition of amoralism.

                If someone asked me what an amoralist is, then I would say it is someone who is philosophically uncommitted to any theory of morality.”

                At any rate, my amoralist analogy post still has no response.

              • Anonymous says:

                ‘Amoral’ does not describe a philosophical position

              • Egoist says:

                Amoralism implies anything goes, and that is a philosophical position.

            • Egoist says:

              I contend that any concept held as absolute and universal, under which I am to obey regardless of my own selfish desires, are all equally sacred concepts.

              Belief in God, morality, government, property rights, etc are all mystical figments of one’s imagination.

              • RPLong says:

                A couple of points here:

                1 – According to many believers, what you just said is blasphemy.

                2 – Even assuming you’re right and Bob feels the same way, what evidence do you have that Gervais views property rights as a sacred absolute? Bob’s argument only really applies if this is true.

              • Egoist says:

                1. Of course. Blasphemy implies sacred concepts that have been violated. If there are no sacred concepts, then blasphemy is impossible.

                2. I have no idea what Gervais holds as an absolute. I didn’t say anything about his beliefs of property rights. I only used it as an example. Although I strongly suspect Gervais is morally against rape, murder, and theft, because he holds sacred SOME version of property rights.

          • Arthur Krolman says:

            What if Gervais said to a man who likes the color red (which Gervais doesn’t let’s say): “Oh you like red? Which shade of red? Magenta, pink or brown etc there are 500 shades you know?….So you’re just like me then almost. You prefer 1 and pass up 499, and I pass up 500.”

            My point is that someone who believes in Walter Block, let’s say, would be quite happy if Ron Paul were to set the private property rules some day. They’re both pretty close shades of red. To the contrary, someone who believes in Yaweh would not be quite happy to have Beelzebub, just another competing Semitic deity after all, set the rules. Beelzebub is Satan right? Would Walter Block call Ron Paul Satan? I don’t think so.

          • joeftansey says:

            I would say that you guys are trying to catch Gervais in a technicality, when his real point is clear as day:

            Christians have no problem rejecting 2999 insane classical religions. Why did they get a brain-fart when evaluating Christianity?

            • Arthur Krolman says:

              Joe: Agreed. It is a technicality. But we need to grant Bob the point. Gervais is technically wrong in his logic here. Bob goes on to argue that if you agree with Gervais, you’re open to a gotcha when people use the same logic to decry the many beliefs about property rights. I quibble with this part as I argue above.

  15. C Kern says:

    I might be slightly off the reservation with this, but I think “religion” is an extension of our minds power to create and imagine, that humans in the past and current create/maintain religion through psychological permanence. It’s not a matter of “my” god vs “your” god, but would God still exist without humans to believe in him (or them)?

    I am not a particularly religous person, but as a kid I went to Pentecostal church with my grandma. I have seen first hand freaky things like people talking in tongues, speaking a language even they couldn’t understand. I have seen these first hand, was it just jibberish? A scam? Was it something more? It was defintely something, whatever that is.. This experience is why I have a hard time just completely writing off religion.

    There is also those studies with random number generators that seem to suggest there is “something” going on, what they call Global Consciousness, which has shown a tendency to effect the data results collected during “world events” such as elections, natural disasters, the Emmy’s, etc. This project can be found: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

    So for all you atheists out there, there may not be a “God”, but there is definetly “something” what ever that is. Karma, global conscious, God, whatever.. It’s out there. Just my 2 pennies.

  16. Keshav Srinivasan says:

    Bob, I know this wasn’t the point you were making in the post at all, but I’m just curious: do you actually happen to agree with Proudhon’s whole “property is theft” idea?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Keshav I actually don’t know the context in which Proudhon quipped that famous line, but I would never endorse such a statement.

  17. John B. says:

    It is difficult to free fools from chains they revere (Voltaire)

    I would recommend you Gerald Messadié and his book History of the Devil. It is a very useful reading about the religion and control. And this is also my perception about the God and religion – it forces you to believe and is based on absolutely no evidence. You can not conduct any real empirical research about anything and it often claims its own perfection. It is filled with misogyny, rape, violence, hate towards other groups of people and it scares people with the idea of hell. We are living in 21st century so we should be able to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. There are enough problems we have already even without the religion.

    But I consider this discussion irrelevant, because we all have our point of view on the topic and there is a very little chance to actually convince the opposite side. I recommend to all participants to go outside to some lovely place, like for example HIgh Park or Queen´s Park and enjoy the simple beauty of the nature!

  18. Spooner says:

    Gervais’ argument is actually a good one.

    His criticism relies on there being no scientific evidence for the Christian God, which means such a belief is, fundamentally, no different than believing in any of the other 3000 gods.

    Property rights, on the other hand, are not supernatural entities, so any particular theory is accepted on the basis of a logical argument, not on faith, as in religion.

  19. Spooner says:

    So for example, if Gervais and RPM were chatting, RPM might say “I believe in God. He created the earth and the heavens”. And Gervais would say: “that belief is not scientifically provable or disprovable, so it is arbitrary and therefore equivalent to saying you believe in Zeus, or any of the other 3000 gods”.

    Whereas you can’t react the same way when someone disagrees with you on property rights. In that case, logic and evidence come into play. It’s an entirely different discussion.

Leave a Reply to Egoist

Cancel Reply