Comments for Apple Eaters http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com a blog about reason and healthy skepticism Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:52:51 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Lying for Jesus by Katy http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/lying-for-jesus/#comment-438 Katy Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:52:51 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/lying-for-jesus/#comment-438 message me your address on facebook and i'll send it to you :) message me your address on facebook and i’ll send it to you :)

]]> Comment on Lying for Jesus by Jim http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/lying-for-jesus/#comment-437 Jim Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:56:24 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/lying-for-jesus/#comment-437 "Wh,y thank you! This 150-year old text will be great for my bio-chem class!" Right. Hey, if you know anyone who got a copy but doesn't want it, send it to me. I'd like to look at it. “Wh,y thank you! This 150-year old text will be great for my bio-chem class!” Right.
Hey, if you know anyone who got a copy but doesn’t want it, send it to me. I’d like to look at it.

]]> Comment on Lying for Jesus by Katy http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/lying-for-jesus/#comment-436 Katy Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:49:33 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/lying-for-jesus/#comment-436 they came to my school today to pass out the books (UC irvine in california). they handed them out to students saying "here, free copy of the origin of species, you can use it for your science classes!" they didn't say a word about the introduction or anything. i got my hands on a copy and one thing i noticed that you don't point out in this awesome blog post is the the font on comfort's intro was fairly large and accompanied with pictures, and the text for the origin of species was freaking tiny!!! seriously, it would strain someone's eyes trying to read text that small. it's so obvious they didn't mean for anyone to read the actual book. what a waste a paper, they should have just passed out pamphlets of comfort's opinions. but i guess they had to try to sneak his writing into a legitimate source because no one would care otherwise lol. they came to my school today to pass out the books (UC irvine in california). they handed them out to students saying “here, free copy of the origin of species, you can use it for your science classes!” they didn’t say a word about the introduction or anything. i got my hands on a copy and one thing i noticed that you don’t point out in this awesome blog post is the the font on comfort’s intro was fairly large and accompanied with pictures, and the text for the origin of species was freaking tiny!!! seriously, it would strain someone’s eyes trying to read text that small. it’s so obvious they didn’t mean for anyone to read the actual book. what a waste a paper, they should have just passed out pamphlets of comfort’s opinions. but i guess they had to try to sneak his writing into a legitimate source because no one would care otherwise lol.

]]> Comment on Lying for Jesus by John http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/lying-for-jesus/#comment-435 John Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:37:12 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/lying-for-jesus/#comment-435 Hi Jim Can't say I entirely agree with leaving this nonsense in the introduction. Darwin’s “Origin of Species” is a science book about evolution; the introduction is a massive distraction. I certainly agree that the introduction itself is worth studying, but I think having Darwin’s work, attached for reference, is inappropriate; although I suppose it would be appropriate if they were going to religious institutes. I’m not sure that everyone is capable of seeing which side is telling lies. Jim, great blog, keep it going. John D Hi Jim

Can’t say I entirely agree with leaving this nonsense in the introduction. Darwin’s “Origin of Species” is a science book about evolution; the introduction is a massive distraction. I certainly agree that the introduction itself is worth studying, but I think having Darwin’s work, attached for reference, is inappropriate; although I suppose it would be appropriate if they were going to religious institutes.

I’m not sure that everyone is capable of seeing which side is telling lies. Jim, great blog, keep it going.

John D

]]> Comment on The Argument from Morality by Liza http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/the-argument-from-morality/#comment-416 Liza Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:09:29 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/?p=343#comment-416 Right. It's certainly possible that God is omniscient but evil, or at least indifferent to the Good. That's not problematic so long as we're positing hypothetical Gods for the sake of argument. But, that might be problematic as far as the hypothetical objective "Good" goes. I am inclined to think that any objective Good would have to be intrinsically valuable. It seems weird to think that God could recognize the intrinsic value of the Good (which He must do if He is all-knowing) and yet be indifferent to it. Of course, God might love the Good and still be indifferent to us. The picture is entirely coherent if God's Knowing the Good but doesn't preclude Him from being a liar or a jerk to us. The only problem then is that we have no reason to trust God, and our intuitions about what is good are not a reliable indicator of what really is Good. So, I guess, in addition to belief in God and belief in the Good, we would have to take it on faith that God wants us to know the Good if this whole picture is going to work. But really, what's one more unfounded assertion among friends? Right. It’s certainly possible that God is omniscient but evil, or at least indifferent to the Good. That’s not problematic so long as we’re positing hypothetical Gods for the sake of argument. But, that might be problematic as far as the hypothetical objective “Good” goes. I am inclined to think that any objective Good would have to be intrinsically valuable. It seems weird to think that God could recognize the intrinsic value of the Good (which He must do if He is all-knowing) and yet be indifferent to it. Of course, God might love the Good and still be indifferent to us. The picture is entirely coherent if God’s Knowing the Good but doesn’t preclude Him from being a liar or a jerk to us. The only problem then is that we have no reason to trust God, and our intuitions about what is good are not a reliable indicator of what really is Good. So, I guess, in addition to belief in God and belief in the Good, we would have to take it on faith that God wants us to know the Good if this whole picture is going to work. But really, what’s one more unfounded assertion among friends?

]]> Comment on The Argument from Morality by Jim http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/the-argument-from-morality/#comment-415 Jim Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:40 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/?p=343#comment-415 "That being said, if there is an omniscient God and there is objective Good, then it is reasonable to conclude that something is beloved by God because it is Good." Assuming, of course, that that god isn't a big jerk. “That being said, if there is an omniscient God and there is objective Good, then it is reasonable to conclude that something is beloved by God because it is Good.”

Assuming, of course, that that god isn’t a big jerk.

]]> Comment on The Argument from Morality by Liza http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/the-argument-from-morality/#comment-414 Liza Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:19:51 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/?p=343#comment-414 Perhaps I bring this up too often, but your argument that God's preferences are subjective really reminded me of the debate in the Euthyphro. In that dialogue, Socrates and Euthyphro address the question of whether a thing is Good because it is loved by the the Gods or whether something is loved by the Gods because it is Good. They have to reject the first thesis because they observe that different Gods have different preferences. I remember discussing this dialogue with a professor I had as an undergraduate who is a theologian. Her interpretation was that Socrates was making a point about monotheism: There has to be one God who is the foundation of the Good because if there is more than one God then Their Wills can contradict. But, I think she was missing a much deeper point about the relationship between moral objectivity and the Will of God, the point which you make explicit. Whether we're talking about one God or a Pantheon, the Will of God(s) is subjective. I think most moral realists (even Christians) have the strong intuition that the Good must be independent of the will of various Gods. It is easy to make a mistake and assume that objective moral Good is objective because it is the will of one, omni-benevolent God because monotheism doesn't leave room for the conflicting wills of Gods. But your examples demonstrate exactly why this is so problematic. If something is good just because some being favors it, then the power of that being makes no difference in the subjectivity of goodness. So, the fact that God's will is subjective just like any of ours is a problem. The existence of God isn't a precondition for the existence of an objective Good. That being said, if there is an omniscient God and there is objective Good, then it is reasonable to conclude that something is beloved by God because it is Good. If God is omniscient then he must Know the Good. It seems to me that a person of faith could reasonably conclude that God is the authority on the Good because of His Knowledge, even if the Good is itself independent of the existence of God. Of course, I don't posit the existence of God or the Good because they don't do any explanatory work, but if I believed that God existed and that some text gave me access to His Will, then I would conclude that the text was also authoritative about the Good. Perhaps I bring this up too often, but your argument that God’s preferences are subjective really reminded me of the debate in the Euthyphro. In that dialogue, Socrates and Euthyphro address the question of whether a thing is Good because it is loved by the the Gods or whether something is loved by the Gods because it is Good. They have to reject the first thesis because they observe that different Gods have different preferences. I remember discussing this dialogue with a professor I had as an undergraduate who is a theologian. Her interpretation was that Socrates was making a point about monotheism: There has to be one God who is the foundation of the Good because if there is more than one God then Their Wills can contradict. But, I think she was missing a much deeper point about the relationship between moral objectivity and the Will of God, the point which you make explicit. Whether we’re talking about one God or a Pantheon, the Will of God(s) is subjective.

I think most moral realists (even Christians) have the strong intuition that the Good must be independent of the will of various Gods. It is easy to make a mistake and assume that objective moral Good is objective because it is the will of one, omni-benevolent God because monotheism doesn’t leave room for the conflicting wills of Gods. But your examples demonstrate exactly why this is so problematic. If something is good just because some being favors it, then the power of that being makes no difference in the subjectivity of goodness.

So, the fact that God’s will is subjective just like any of ours is a problem. The existence of God isn’t a precondition for the existence of an objective Good. That being said, if there is an omniscient God and there is objective Good, then it is reasonable to conclude that something is beloved by God because it is Good. If God is omniscient then he must Know the Good. It seems to me that a person of faith could reasonably conclude that God is the authority on the Good because of His Knowledge, even if the Good is itself independent of the existence of God. Of course, I don’t posit the existence of God or the Good because they don’t do any explanatory work, but if I believed that God existed and that some text gave me access to His Will, then I would conclude that the text was also authoritative about the Good.

]]> Comment on The Argument from Morality by Jim http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/the-argument-from-morality/#comment-413 Jim Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:24:56 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/?p=343#comment-413 I'm not at all certain that ethics is the real concern for these apologists. Rather, I think they're attempting to find some method that renders God necessary, and this is merely one tactic among many. I also don't think it's the case that most materialists are moral anti-realists. The statistics collected about practicing scientists strongly suggests that they are overwhelmingly materialists, and this is in line with my own personal experience. However, I don't know a single one that is a moral anti-realist. Now, this might simply be from lack of consideration. That said, the point still stands. I’m not at all certain that ethics is the real concern for these apologists. Rather, I think they’re attempting to find some method that renders God necessary, and this is merely one tactic among many.
I also don’t think it’s the case that most materialists are moral anti-realists. The statistics collected about practicing scientists strongly suggests that they are overwhelmingly materialists, and this is in line with my own personal experience. However, I don’t know a single one that is a moral anti-realist. Now, this might simply be from lack of consideration. That said, the point still stands.

]]> Comment on The Argument from Morality by James Gray http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/the-argument-from-morality/#comment-412 James Gray Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:13:41 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/?p=343#comment-412 All arguments for god basically say God is the best explanation for a phenomena, and the problem tends to be that there are so many explanations for a phenomena that it isn't clear that God is the best one. The whole point of God tends to be that he is exempt from the normal rules of reality. That is why God is viewed as supernatural. This does seem like a big problem, and it might be a good idea to talk more about that. (If God doesn't go by normal rules, then how could we know anything about him?) There is something important about these arguments. I think religious people are alluding to an important question about moral realism. There are problems with moral anti-realism, and realism is one possible solution. Most materialists are anti-realists, but not all of them are. For example, if ethics has no realist grounding, then it isn't clear why we should be altruistic. We might even be able to train ourselves to lose our sense of compassion and empathy in order to be more self-serving. Those emotions aren't very pleasant to have for the most part. All arguments for god basically say God is the best explanation for a phenomena, and the problem tends to be that there are so many explanations for a phenomena that it isn’t clear that God is the best one.

The whole point of God tends to be that he is exempt from the normal rules of reality. That is why God is viewed as supernatural. This does seem like a big problem, and it might be a good idea to talk more about that. (If God doesn’t go by normal rules, then how could we know anything about him?)

There is something important about these arguments. I think religious people are alluding to an important question about moral realism. There are problems with moral anti-realism, and realism is one possible solution. Most materialists are anti-realists, but not all of them are. For example, if ethics has no realist grounding, then it isn’t clear why we should be altruistic. We might even be able to train ourselves to lose our sense of compassion and empathy in order to be more self-serving. Those emotions aren’t very pleasant to have for the most part.

]]> Comment on Economics and Values by Raymond Boyles http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/economics-and-values/#comment-410 Raymond Boyles Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:35:13 +0000 http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/?p=325#comment-410 My comment is not to any specific article, but to address the site itself. I believe the articles to be very well written and researched. Good luck. :) My comment is not to any specific article, but to address the site itself. I believe the articles to be very well written and researched. Good luck.
:)

]]>