Tag: philosophy

Incompetent biologists

The butterfly collectors should probably leave the metaphysics and philosophy alone considering that they can’t even do their own jobs properly:

A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well. Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild….

Dr Diana Fisher, of the University of Queensland, Australia, compiled a list of all mammals declared extinct since the 16th century or which were flagged up as missing in scientific papers. ‘We identified 187 mammal species that have been missing since 1500,’ she wrote in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. ‘In the complete data-set, 67 species that were once missing have been rediscovered. More than a third of mammal species that have been classified as extinct or possibly extinct, or flagged as missing, have been rediscovered.’

That is a stunning record of professional incompetence, one that is surpassed only by Keynesian economists. Clearly one can safely ignore pretty much everything these intrepid scientists declare about one species magically transforming into another one as well, considering their proven inability to determine if a specific species even exists or not. And, needless to say, this raises some serious doubts about the assertion made by various members of the profession that God doesn’t exist either. If you’re not capable of correctly ascertaining the existence or not-existence of the Vanikoro Flying Fox of the Solomon Islands, then logic dictates you should steer very clear of the debate about the existence of God.

Killing the meat eaters

Reading this philosophical ode to trans-species totalitarianism, one is reminded that Hitler, too, was a vegetarian:

It would be good to prevent the vast suffering and countless violent deaths caused by predation. There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species, provided that this could occur without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation. The claim that existing animal species are sacred or irreplaceable is subverted by the moral irrelevance of the criteria for individuating animal species. I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment.

But what about the plants? Do they not also live? This monstrous proposal is dependent upon the commission of mass herbicide? One has no other choice but to conclude that the Athenians had it right. The best response to a philosopher is to provide him with nice, hearty draught of hemlock.

The amoral essence of atheism

You can lead an atheist to logic, but on the evidence of this professor of philosophy, it’s going to take him at least a decade to follow it:

In a word, this philosopher has long been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely, that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t.

How I arrived at this conclusion is the subject of a book I have written during this recent period (tentatively titled Bad Faith: A Personal Memoir on Atheism, Amorality, and Animals). The long and the short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality. I call the premise of this argument ‘hard atheism’ because it is analogous to a thesis in philosophy known as ‘hard determinism.’ The latter holds that if metaphysical determinism is true, then there is no such thing as free will. Thus, a ‘soft determinist’ believes that, even if your reading of this column right now has followed by causal necessity from the Big Bang fourteen billion years ago, you can still meaningfully be said to have freely chosen to read it. Analogously, a ‘soft atheist’ would hold that one could be an atheist and still believe in morality. And indeed, the whole crop of ‘New Atheists’ (see Issue 78) are softies of this kind. So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.

Why do I now accept hard atheism? I was struck by salient parallels between religion and morality, especially that both avail themselves of imperatives or commands, which are intended to apply universally. In the case of religion, and most obviously theism, these commands emanate from a Commander; “and this all people call God,” as Aquinas might have put it. The problem with theism is of course the shaky grounds for believing in God. But the problem with morality, I now maintain, is that it is in even worse shape than religion in this regard; for if there were a God, His issuing commands would make some kind of sense. But if there is no God, as of course atheists assert, then what sense could be made of there being commands of this sort? In sum, while theists take the obvious existence of moral commands to be a kind of proof of the existence of a Commander, i.e., God, I now take the non-existence of a Commander as a kind of proof that there are no Commands, i.e., morality.

Now that Marc “Moral Minds” Hauser has been exposed as a scientific fraud and Sam Harris has spiraled off into weird neuro-Buddhist utilitarian psychophilosophy, it is well past time for atheists to stop avoiding the rational consequences of their godless belief systems and admit what was always obvious to everyone from the start. As I have repeatedly explained to the sort of maleducated overestimator of his own intelligence that actually believes that there is a genuine dilemma to be found in Euthyphro, the essence of morality is, and has always been, God’s Game, God’s Rules. Therefore, no God = no Rules. It takes some serious education to sufficiently confuse an otherwise intelligent individual to the point that it takes him more than a decade to recognize this basic and patently obvious logic.

Hard Atheism isn’t a bad name for the concept, but there is already a more accurate one. It’s called Rational Atheism.

Answering questions

What is your favorite color?
Straw blonde.

What is your quest?
To finally play Fifth Frontier War. This maywill require finishing the VASSAL mod. I’ve got the map and infantry counters done, now I just have to finish the spaceships.

How do you manage your time with all the activities you are engaged in (reading, writing, gaming, soccer, family, work)?
I work in exceptionally fast bursts, punctuated by long periods of doing little more than reading. I drop the sports, writing, and gaming whenever necessary. Also, I have essentially eradicated my social life since I find that I tend to prefer solitary pursuits these days.

Who’s your second favourite Ilk after me of course?
Bane.

What is your IQ?
Over the so-called “genius” threshhold. Some people can’t seem to figure out that the 132 IQ Mensa requirement (Stanford-Binet) is a floor, not a ceiling.

Why do you hate science?
I don’t hate science. I have great respect for the scientific method, although I am cognizant of its conceptual and practical limits. The problem is that my contempt for scientists who dishonestly make use of bait-and-switches wherein they appeal to the authority of the scientific method without actually utilizing it in any way is often mistaken for a dislike of science by the modestly intelligent.

Why do you hate socialism?
Because it is an economic absurdity built on a false premise of value, an ideological monstrosity constructed upon the worst aspects of human nature, and a form of societal organization that is both intrinsically inefficient from an economic perspective and reliably dangerous from a political one.

Why are you a racist?
It depends upon how you define “racist”. There is no question that there are divergent human populations; the genetic science is settled in this regard and only a scientific ignoramus would deny that race, in the form of a genetically homogeneous groups of homo sapiens exists. But to acknowledge the existence of racial diversity is not tantamount to a belief in general racial superiority. Each race has various strengths and weaknesses. None are intrinsically superior on average; the relative superiority of one race in comparison with another completely depends upon the metric selected. Ergo, I am not a racist.

Why are you a sexist?
Because I don’t believe sexual equality exists, or ever has existed, in any material, spiritual, or legal form. And it never will exist.

Why did you leave the US?
Because I anticipated that it was going to go through some very difficult times in the near future and I didn’t want to be around a bunch of deluded and disappointed people in the process of discovering that they were not, in fact, the most wealthy, most powerful, and most free people on the planet. My philosophy is that it is best to leave Rome before Alaric arrives.

Why Italy?
First, collapse would be redundant. Second, the food is good and the weather is nice. Third, I always wanted to learn the language.

If planning a visit to Italy, what places do recommend and what places should be avoided?
Go to Rome, Venice, and Verona. Avoid Milan and Florence.

What are good times of the year to visit Italy?
In the early spring or late fall. But I hate crowds, especially crowds of tourists, so I’m quite happy to have to wear a jacket in order to be alone in a piazza. Also, my tolerance for cold is higher than most.

At what age did you embrace your Christian faith?
27.

Do you think Brown is right, that the Permanent Portfolio always makes sense?
No. No investment philosophy always makes sense. Stocks can take 30 years just to break even.

If you and Chuck Norris got into a fight, who would win?
At our respective peaks, Mr. Norris. I might have a shot today since I am younger and closer to my peak speed and strength.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Seven.

Can God create a rock so large that He is unable to lift it?
Yes.

Why do birds suddenly appear every time you draw near?
Upon visiting the shrine of St. Frances of Assisi in the winter of 2001, I realized that the pattern of the trees in the grove were planted in an unusual way that suggested hermetic purpose. After eight months of close daily observation, I discovered that the shadows they cast spelled out a certain word on the autumnal equinox. Speaking that word at sunrise on a particular date gave me the gift of Gramarye. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of testing it with a extraordinarily loquacious starling and now that many of the birds around the world know I can understand them, the little bastards simply won’t leave me alone.

Is Alex Jones your mentor?
No. I’m not a fan of radio talkers.

Have you ever gamed a Japanese invasion of the west coast ~1942?
Not per se. I have played War in the Pacific, the computer game published by Matrix Games, but I didn’t try invading the West Coast.

What is your favorite caliber handgun?
.40 caliber. No particular reason, I just don’t like 9mm and I’m accustomed to forty.

If one of your feminist critics decided they wanted to have sex with you anyways, would you? That is if you weren’t married and said feminist was HOT. Would you? And by hot, I mean swedish bikini blonde hot…

Hypotheticals are irrelevant; as it stands I already have Norwegian bikini blonde hot. And having recently visited both Stockholm and Olso, I can state with assurance that Norwegian is much hotter. So, no.

My daughter just started playing soccer and I’d like to know where you learned so much about the game. What can I do to learn enough to be useful to her development in the game?
Playing it for 25 years. Go join a rec team and learn how to play it. It’s a simple game and it’s not hard to pick up on the tactics even if your technical skills are hopeless.

When does the next installment of Summa Elvetica come out?
I have to write it first. I have no idea.

Blue Hurricane or Amaretto Sour?
I have to go with the Windex. It’s the umbrellas, you know. But I’ll take a proper Sex on the Beach with Chambord, chilled but sans ice, over either.

Why do we like a person we’ve never met, so much?
It’s the charming combination of total arrogance with a complete unwillingness to take myself seriously. Humanity isn’t merely flawed, it is ridiculous.

Favorite books?

Foucault’s Pendulum by Umberto Eco. The Dark is Rising by Susan Cooper. A Horse and His Boy by CS Lewis. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkein.

How many comments do you have to delete from people who have no business commenting in the first place? Are there ever idle threats?
About three or four per day on average. Not really. The sort of commenter who gets himself banned is much more given to claiming martyrdom and superior debate skills than issuing threats.

Why do you hate?
Because I feed on the dark side of the Force.

How do you conceptualize God?
A model builder sitting outside a globe of space-time and checking it out from time to time when He feels curious. I find it hard to imagine that God is as completely consumed with interest in His Creation as many atheists and Christians assume. I’m not claiming He’s indifferent or completely hands-off, I’m just saying that it’s possible the Deists were not entirely off-base.

Holden Caulfield, misunderstood genius, or spoiled brat prick?
Spoiled brat prick. He desperately needed a beat-down or three.

More to come as needed….

Letter to Vox Day VIII

Luke continues our dialogue. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, this isn’t going to end anytime soon. I will respond before the end of the month, but in the meantime, I will put a few of Luke’s commenters straight:

1. Vox happens to be a genius by the dictionary’s numerical definition. Nevertheless, Vox does not believe he is a genius because he rejects that definition in favor of alternative and less specific definitions that are based upon uniquely superlative intellectual accomplishments. Writing the occasional novel, demolishing the central New Atheist arguments, and correctly anticipating the global financial crisis are certainly intellectual accomplishments, but they are neither unique nor superlative.

2. As will eventually become clear, Vox is not rejecting any of the suggested criteria out of concern for their potential effect on his theories. As a general rule, it is a mistake to project one’s own predilection for intellectual dishonesty on others; at the very least, one should wait to see what the justifications are before passing judgment.

3. Vox has no authority on these matters and has no problem whatsoever with having his epistemology examined or exposed. This accusation is ironic, for as Luke and many of the VP readers know, it is usually the atheist camp that prefers to avoid epistemological examinations.

4. The fact that you don’t understand a point Vox made is not prima facie evidence that Vox is being obscure or even insufficiently clear. If a majority of the readers understood it without any trouble, logic dictates that you consider the probability you are either insufficiently informed or insufficiently intelligent to understand it.

Turnabout is fair play

I’m on the other end of the interview for a change:

Mr. B.A.D.: Does your greater intelligence give you grace for dealing with people less capable than you, or do you spend most of the day sighing and irritated?

Vox Day: Absolutely not. Unfortunately, it took me a very long time to learn to regard people of relatively normal intelligence with sympathy and amusement rather than simple contempt. What still remains annoying are the people of moderate intelligence, say the 110 to 120 range, who simply don’t understand that they are closer to the normal people to whom they condescend than I am to them. So it’s annoying when they assume I’m talking gibberish just because they aren’t capable of understanding something.

This was for Facebook or Myspace or something. I’m not entirely clear on why, but I have to admit that it was the first time I have ever thought about fictional characters and with whom I might identify.

Helping Haiti

David Brooks contemplates why international aid doesn’t work and fails to reach a conclusion:

The first of those truths is that we don’t know how to use aid to reduce poverty. Over the past few decades, the world has spent trillions of dollars to generate growth in the developing world. The countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not….

The second hard truth is that micro-aid is vital but insufficient. Given the failures of macrodevelopment, aid organizations often focus on microprojects. More than 10,000 organizations perform missions of this sort in Haiti. By some estimates, Haiti has more nongovernmental organizations per capita than any other place on earth. They are doing the Lord’s work, especially these days, but even a blizzard of these efforts does not seem to add up to comprehensive change.

I see absolutely no benefit to anyone, least of all the Haitians, by turning it into the latest iteration of Band Aid. The track record of “international aid” is perfectly clear; it does not work, it fosters dependency, and it creates far more long-term problems than it solves short-term ones. The tragedy of this earthquake is, as Brooks correctly points out, the three orders of magnitude difference between it and the 1989 San Francisco earthquake. This is not an act of God, it is the entirely predictable consequences of human action. The West has abandoned the White Man’s Burden for the world along with its Christian identity. Furthermore, there are already 10,000 aid organizations present in Haiti, so one more organization or one more dollar of aid is not going to accomplish anything positive, it is merely going to prolong the very situation that turned what should have been an expensive, but minor societal annoyance into an appalling human tragedy.

Being a moderate, Brooks splits the difference by implying that those doing “the Lord’s work” should continue even though it’s not going to do any good and can even be shown to have done tremendous harm. I disagree, as I think it is wrong to act to save one life today if that action will cause one thousand deaths tomorrow. A refusal to act is not always a sin of omission; if anyone besides the people of Haiti are to blame for this lethal debacle, it is the tens of thousands of people who were so magnanimously “helping” them in the past.

It is good to help the poor and needy. But it is evil to keep people in a constant state of poverty and deprivation. Distinguishing between the two requires wisdom and discernment, not science and politics. The people of Haiti need prayer, discipline, and wise leadership, they do not need more of what has played such an important role in killing so many of them.

Letter to Common Sense Atheism VII

Dear Luke,

In your last letter, you wrote that before you could answer my questions, it was necessary to define the concept of “best explanation”. While I would have been fine with the concept of “the explanation that you find most convincing for whatever idiosyncratic reason the murky crevices of your psyche can produce to rationalize its decision”, I understand that you prefer “a model of explanation called explanationism that is intuitive to most people.”

x is the best explanation of y if it is the case that:

(A) if x were true, then by knowing x we would better understand y’s causal background than by not knowing x [i.e. x is a potential explanation of y],

and if it is also the case that

(B) x possesses the following explanatory virtues to a greater degree than any other known potential explanations of y: testability, consistency with background knowledge, past explanatory success, simplicity, ontological economy, informativeness, predictive novelty, explanatory scope, and explanatory power.

The problem with this definition by explanatory virtue is that some of the virtues cause you to artificially limit the investigation of the unknown by handcuffing it to the parameters of that which is presumed to be known. This all but guarantees systematic errors based on incorrect assumptions of the past. While it would certainly be ideal for a good explanatory hypothesis to be testable, but that is simply not possible in all cases. It therefore sets an artificial and incorrect technological limit on the process; for example, the x-ray hypothesis was correct regardless of whether it was possible to test for them.

Consistency with background knowledge is irrelevant. Fitting within a tradition of past success is similarly irrelevant. Simplicity is irrelevant too. This is philosophy, not interior design. Ontological economy begs the question of what is “necessary”; Occam’s Razor is a shortcut, not a reliable rule. On the other hand, informativeness is correct, predictive novelty is both applicable and useful, and explanatory scope and power are reasonable. I would give priority to informativeness, explanatory scope, and predictive novelty.

So, I am content to accept your explanatory model if you are willing to give priority to the three aformentioned explanatory virtues.

Best regards,
Vox

This was written in response to Letter to Vox Day VII.

Mailvox: evading Euthyphro

NR queries the Catholic response:

I regularly visit your blog and remember that you’ve discussed the Euthyphro question. I was looking at a Catholic website (www.catholic.com) that answers theological questions, and the old question came up on their website like this:

“Is the difference between good and bad whatever God says it is? Or is God good because he conforms to a standard of goodjavascript:void(0)ness?”

And the question was answered this way:

“Neither. Goodness is not imposed upon God from some external standard nor is it invented by him. Rather, it is rooted in his own eternal and unchanging nature. For example, when God commands us to love him with our whole heart and to our neighbor as ourselves, that is rooted in the fact that God himself is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8). He could not suddenly choose to forbid loving God and neighbor, or command hating God and neighbor, for he cannot be other than what he is.”

Is this a valid answer in your opinion?

It’s potentially valid answer, but I consider it to be inaccurate as well as evasive because it confuses God’s essence with God’s will in an attempt to avoid the so-called dilemma. I believe God can choose to distinguish between His will and His essence and I suspect that He has done precisely that in the case of certain individuals who had specific roles to play at a crucial nexus. In fact, there is an inherent contradiction in the two ideas of a) a Catholic God who cannot forbid loving God, and, b) an Omniderigiste God who controls the actions of all individuals, including those who do not love Him. Of course, Catholics do not necessarily subscribe to omniderigence, so this contradiction is not necessarily intrinsic to the Catholic answer.

So, I come down strongly on the side of good and bad being whatever God says it is. We know, from the Bible, that God does change His will. But changing one’s will is not the equivalent of changing one’s essence. And I never lose any sleep over the possibility that He will change His mind about His definitions of good and bad tomorrow, since that requires a failure to distinguish between the concepts of possibility and probability.

For the record

“There is no eternal standard of right and wrong.”
– PZ Myers

I thought that was a quotation worth noting. Read the whole thing so you can appreciate the context; it is an object lesson in why biologists teaching community college students would do well to avoid attempting both logic and philosophy. Of course, the Fowl Atheist’s stated belief in the absence of any eternal standard of right and wrong and his implied belief in the absence of any objective standard of right and wrong doesn’t prevent him from constantly labeling various actions and individuals as being either right or wrong. I don’t think PZ is demonstrating hypocrisy here, however, so much as simple incoherence. One has to be aware of one’s inconsistency before one attempt to maintain a pretense, after all.

It is both hilarious and deeply ironic that someone whose ability to reason correctly is so demonstrably nonexistent should nevertheless see fit to declare: “We should build our morality on reason.” The thought is neither original nor tenable.