Not so easy if you bother to find out what the religious actually mean by omnipotent.
Exactly where in the bible does it say YHWH couldn't reach into my head and stream all of history into it?
Exactly where in the Bible does it say that God is omnipotent? Oh, and if God did reach into your head and stream all of history into it that still wouldn't prove the existence of God -- you would have nothing to test it against, and I understand LSD can give a similar experience.
But that's a moral/sociological argument, not a scientific one.
No, it's a logical one: the antecedent is invalid, so there's no point in bothering to think about the consequent.
I think you mean false, not invalid (invalid has a technical meaning in logic and applies to the whole argument, not to a single predicate). And the antecedent isn't false: some people do abstain.
So now you say that the best ethical framework minimises harm whilst staying within certain rules? What was it I said about "backing away somewhat from pure utilitarianism to some sort of mix of utilitarian and deontic ethics"?
I think the golden rule can be ultimately derived from minimization of harm, but deriving everything from first principles would make for very long arguments.
If you can manage to do that, publish. Nobody else has managed yet.
That's an easy one. It might be indeed an impossible condition to satisfy, but if it's a god, and it's indeed omnipotent, then it can. An omnipotent being could make me see all of mankind's history starting from the creation of the universe up to today, and manage to make all of that fit in my head.
Not so easy if you bother to find out what the religious actually mean by omnipotent.
I'm not making an argument, I'm saying it's a pointless line of argumentation. It's like "If the moon was made of cheese...", but it isn't, so any further thoughts down that line are pointless.
But that's a moral/sociological argument, not a scientific one.
On the holocaust, that very clearly fails the golden rule
[snip]
That also fails the golden rule.
So now you say that the best ethical framework minimises harm whilst staying within certain rules? What was it I said about "backing away somewhat from pure utilitarianism to some sort of mix of utilitarian and deontic ethics"?
Depends. If God or the gods don't exist, no reason. If they do, every reason.
Why would I need religion if God exists? I will believe in one when it's proven, by say, showing up, saying Hi, and performing something sufficiently godly. But then I won't need a religion, as there will be proof.
Christians assert that God has already done that, but in fact it wouldn't be proof of the existence of God, for any useful definition of God (something Jesus is reported as noting: Luke 16:31). Ok, they might be able to do impressive stuff, but that shows that they have access to better technology, not that they're omnipotent. What they say might check out, but that shows that they're well-informed, not omniscient. How could they show that they created the universe? If you apply Occam's razor, any finite explanation of the observations is preferable to the explanation of an infinite being. That's why it's a mistake to draw any conclusions either way about the existence of God from any absence of scientific proof of his/her existence.
Given the number of times I've had condoms split on me I have to grant that the Vatican's solution of sexual abstinence outside lifelong monogamous relationships would be more effective if applied.
Yes, but that's a pipe dream. People have proven they don't abstain even if they swear to every deity they will.
True, but you are now into a moral argument (does it serve them right?) and a theological argument (why would a good God allow the innocent to suffer?), not a scientific argument.
Right. But how does one decide between competing ethical frameworks? Nobody has come up with an agreed way to do that even without religion in the picture.
The best ethical framework minimizes harm, so we compare them on that basis.
Your ethical framework minimizes harm, and you believe that to be the best, which is why you hold it. In fact, few people would tolerate all-out utilitarianism as an ethical framework in practice, partly because of the definition of harm (apartheid in South Africa was often justified on utilitarian grounds, through a particular definition of "harm"), partly because of arguments over who comes within the protection from harm (the holocaust was justified on utilitarian grounds by declaring some groups subhuman and so outside that protection; on the other side Peter Singer has argued that limiting the protection to humans is speciesist, so the protection should be extended to all animals -- thus making veganism a moral obligation) and partly because it leads to conclusions that many find odious (for instance, that unwilling, healthy people should be killed for organ harvesting, because killing one can save the life of many). Utilitarians have answers to all of these, of course, but they are competing answers and most of them seem to involve backing away somewhat from pure utilitarianism to some sort of mix of utilitarian and deontic ethics.
Depends. If God or the gods don't exist, no reason. If they do, every reason.
Ethics, though they often attempt to disagree on matters of science as well, like when they try to pretend condoms don't work for AIDS prevention.
The bit about the aids virus passing through condoms was one idiot in the Vatican who quickly got stomped on. The official Vatican position is that it's not clear how effective condoms are at preventing AIDS. Given the number of times I've had condoms split on me I have to grant that the Vatican's solution of sexual abstinence outside lifelong monogamous relationships would be more effective if applied.
Do you believe that scientific research should be conducted within an ethical framework?
Sure. However I think the religious ethical framework is a horrible one and should be discarded as soon as possible.
In my ethical framework there's absolutely nothing wrong with embryonic stem cell research.
Right. But how does one decide between competing ethical frameworks? Nobody has come up with an agreed way to do that even without religion in the picture.
Can any 'educated' person really believe that the Universe is only a few thousand years old?
Probably not, although being educated only means that one is aware of other views and the reasons for them. Still, most religious people worldwide don't believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and if a majority do where you are then the problem is with the standard of education where you are, not with religion.
Personally, I don't see how you can embrace science and not reject religion without indulging in cognitive dissonance. There is zero evidence for god's existence and lots of evidence for him not existing. I guess it is hard to give up childhood myths even for scientists.
Zero scientific evidence for God existing, but since most definitions of science would exclude any evidence of God existing solely on the grounds of it being evidence of God existing, the religious find that unconvincing. For example, writing in the July/August 2010 issue of Philosophy Now magazine Russell Berg proposed 15 tests of whether a theory is scientific, and his first test -- before anything to do with empiricism -- is the "rejection of explanations invoking gods or spirits". To argue from that to the claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God is circular. Most scientists are aware of the limitations of science (and the issues within science of what actually counts as evidence) and so don't suffer the cognitive dissonance you describe even if they are religious. The cognitive dissonance only occurs if you have a grossly simplified view of what science is (essentially, if you haven't moved on from positivism).
As for there being "lots of evidence for him not existing" -- I believe the expression is [citation needed].
You're right! Where would we be today without the Dark ages? The Crusades? The AIDs epidemic in Africa? The Inquisition? The Salem Witch burnings?...
The abolition of slavery, free education, social welfare...
Oh, by the way, the Church condemned witch burning (and Malleus Maleficarum was condemned as heretical). The witch burnings were almost entirely done by the secular authorities.
Christianity is one of the reasons credited to the enormous advancement of science in Europe as opposed to other parts of the world in the same time period.
During what time period?
During the first 19 centuries AD cited above (and continuing).
The Vatican has one of the longest-running observatories in the world, and has long had an interest in science.
Sure, so long it doesn't conflict with the religion. Go ask the Vatican what's their opinion on embryonic stem cell research.
Even if it conflicts with religion. As Cardinal Bellarmine (one of the inquisition who tried Galileo) wrote: "I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."
If you ask the Vatican for their opinion on embryonic stem cell research, do they disagree with you on a matter of science? Or on a matter of ethics? Do you believe that scientific research should be conducted within an ethical framework?
No, I think he's saying that he doesn't know he's right any more then you do. It really is when people claim to know they are right that problems arise. Jesus was a pretty humble guy, but despite that most Christians exhibit and disturbing lack of humility.
I think that's selection bias. Most of the Christians I know exhibit a great deal of humility, but they tend not to be noticed. Most of the Christians who get noticed as such exhibit a disturbing lack of humility.
The majority of SCIENTISTS do not have a problem with science and religion.
Probably true, although those who do have such a problem tend to be so vocal that the outside observer thinks that they speak for science as a whole.
It is the RELIGIOUS people who have a problem with science. Because it contradicts their religion.
Probably not true, although those who do have such a problem tend to be so vocal that the outside observer thinks that they speak for religion as a whole.
Or just try to get from where I am in London to the Olympic area. I can get to France quicker. Yes, Greater London is over 600 square miles, about twice the area of New York City.
Greater London may be 600 square miles (New York is actually 482 sq miles, if you include the water, which you should, since you have to go over it to get from one part of the city to another) but Greater New York is 11,842 sq miles.
The UK equivalent to Greater New York would either be "London and the Home Counties" or "The Thames Valley" (more likely the former), not "Greater London". Greater London is used for disambiguation from the "City of London" which is just over one square mile and is the financial district of Greater London. The City of London is to Greater London as Wall Street is to New York City. It's a (typically British?) quirk that we have to call what everybody thinks of as the city of London by another name because we're already using the term "the City of London" for something else.
London is MASSIVE. Seriously, look at it on a satellite photo.
Or just try to get from where I am in London to the Olympic area. I can get to France quicker. Yes, Greater London is over 600 square miles, about twice the area of New York City.
I suspect the area where the Olympics are going to be could be covered with a lot less than 70,000 cells. Anything else is just whining.
There's likely to be a lot of extra cellphone traffic in the centre of London and at the usual tourist hotspots too. But still, I'd guess that boosting the coverage over about 10% of London would probably be more than enough. Olympics visitors who spread as far as Cricklewood or Croydon are likely to be sufficiently thin on the ground as not to present a significant extra loading.
What personal information do you have to give to get a Facebook account? Your first and last name (and for most people there are lots of people with the same first and last names), an email address (which can be a disposable one for this purpose), your gender (which is often guessable from your name) and your date of birth. Even if you fill them in honestly, all you are telling the world is that there's a Joe Bloggs, male, born on 20 March 1987 (or whatever) somewhere in the world. Hardly a security risk. All the risky stuff is in the optional profile and the optional postings.
No, he means that accent can be used as an excuse to harass teachers who can be understood perfectly well but are not the "right" ethnic group.
Yes, sometimes something needs to be done about a person's accent. I work in an international context so I'm used to dealing with accents, but I sometimes end up with a call-centre worker that I can't understand at all. If this picks that up and they get help then that's good all round. If they ignore it because the person with the accent is the right caste, whilst using it as an excuse to make life difficult for excellent call-centre workers (yes, I've dealt with some) who are the wrong caste then it's just as bad as if they do much the same with Arizona teachers. Is it such a radical concept that something can be used for both good and bad purposes?
Yes, it was publicly-funded. I didn't challenge the regulations (because I have no particular reason to publish the thing), so I don't know the justification.
The university I studied at in the UK did not claim copyright on my dissertation, but it would be a breach of university regulations if I were to publish it, which could, in the extreme, lead to my degree being revoked. I could, of course, publish a rewritten version containing the same information.
If the school is more than 3 miles away (2 miles for under 8s), or if there is no safe walking route (eg rural roads with no pavement [en-US: sidewalk]), then they would get a school bus, or if it is an extremely rural area, a shared taxi.
Good luck with that -- we spent an age fighting our local authority over that (more than 3 miles to the school -- this was in an urban area, but my son has special educational needs and our nearby schools didn't have the facilities that the local authority agreed he needed). We never did get the transport.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly where in the bible does it say YHWH couldn't reach into my head and stream all of history into it?
Exactly where in the Bible does it say that God is omnipotent? Oh, and if God did reach into your head and stream all of history into it that still wouldn't prove the existence of God -- you would have nothing to test it against, and I understand LSD can give a similar experience.
No, it's a logical one: the antecedent is invalid, so there's no point in bothering to think about the consequent.
I think you mean false, not invalid (invalid has a technical meaning in logic and applies to the whole argument, not to a single predicate). And the antecedent isn't false: some people do abstain.
I think the golden rule can be ultimately derived from minimization of harm, but deriving everything from first principles would make for very long arguments.
If you can manage to do that, publish. Nobody else has managed yet.
That's an easy one. It might be indeed an impossible condition to satisfy, but if it's a god, and it's indeed omnipotent, then it can. An omnipotent being could make me see all of mankind's history starting from the creation of the universe up to today, and manage to make all of that fit in my head.
Not so easy if you bother to find out what the religious actually mean by omnipotent.
I'm not making an argument, I'm saying it's a pointless line of argumentation. It's like "If the moon was made of cheese...", but it isn't, so any further thoughts down that line are pointless.
But that's a moral/sociological argument, not a scientific one.
On the holocaust, that very clearly fails the golden rule
[snip]
That also fails the golden rule.
So now you say that the best ethical framework minimises harm whilst staying within certain rules? What was it I said about "backing away somewhat from pure utilitarianism to some sort of mix of utilitarian and deontic ethics"?
Why would I need religion if God exists? I will believe in one when it's proven, by say, showing up, saying Hi, and performing something sufficiently godly. But then I won't need a religion, as there will be proof.
Christians assert that God has already done that, but in fact it wouldn't be proof of the existence of God, for any useful definition of God (something Jesus is reported as noting: Luke 16:31). Ok, they might be able to do impressive stuff, but that shows that they have access to better technology, not that they're omnipotent. What they say might check out, but that shows that they're well-informed, not omniscient. How could they show that they created the universe? If you apply Occam's razor, any finite explanation of the observations is preferable to the explanation of an infinite being. That's why it's a mistake to draw any conclusions either way about the existence of God from any absence of scientific proof of his/her existence.
Yes, but that's a pipe dream. People have proven they don't abstain even if they swear to every deity they will.
True, but you are now into a moral argument (does it serve them right?) and a theological argument (why would a good God allow the innocent to suffer?), not a scientific argument.
The best ethical framework minimizes harm, so we compare them on that basis.
Your ethical framework minimizes harm, and you believe that to be the best, which is why you hold it. In fact, few people would tolerate all-out utilitarianism as an ethical framework in practice, partly because of the definition of harm (apartheid in South Africa was often justified on utilitarian grounds, through a particular definition of "harm"), partly because of arguments over who comes within the protection from harm (the holocaust was justified on utilitarian grounds by declaring some groups subhuman and so outside that protection; on the other side Peter Singer has argued that limiting the protection to humans is speciesist, so the protection should be extended to all animals -- thus making veganism a moral obligation) and partly because it leads to conclusions that many find odious (for instance, that unwilling, healthy people should be killed for organ harvesting, because killing one can save the life of many). Utilitarians have answers to all of these, of course, but they are competing answers and most of them seem to involve backing away somewhat from pure utilitarianism to some sort of mix of utilitarian and deontic ethics.
Excellent. Why have religion at all, then?
Depends. If God or the gods don't exist, no reason. If they do, every reason.
Ethics, though they often attempt to disagree on matters of science as well, like when they try to pretend condoms don't work for AIDS prevention.
The bit about the aids virus passing through condoms was one idiot in the Vatican who quickly got stomped on. The official Vatican position is that it's not clear how effective condoms are at preventing AIDS. Given the number of times I've had condoms split on me I have to grant that the Vatican's solution of sexual abstinence outside lifelong monogamous relationships would be more effective if applied.
Sure. However I think the religious ethical framework is a horrible one and should be discarded as soon as possible.
In my ethical framework there's absolutely nothing wrong with embryonic stem cell research.
Right. But how does one decide between competing ethical frameworks? Nobody has come up with an agreed way to do that even without religion in the picture.
Hey, she consented!
Can any 'educated' person really believe that the Universe is only a few thousand years old?
Probably not, although being educated only means that one is aware of other views and the reasons for them. Still, most religious people worldwide don't believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and if a majority do where you are then the problem is with the standard of education where you are, not with religion.
Personally, I don't see how you can embrace science and not reject religion without indulging in cognitive dissonance. There is zero evidence for god's existence and lots of evidence for him not existing. I guess it is hard to give up childhood myths even for scientists.
Zero scientific evidence for God existing, but since most definitions of science would exclude any evidence of God existing solely on the grounds of it being evidence of God existing, the religious find that unconvincing. For example, writing in the July/August 2010 issue of Philosophy Now magazine Russell Berg proposed 15 tests of whether a theory is scientific, and his first test -- before anything to do with empiricism -- is the "rejection of explanations invoking gods or spirits". To argue from that to the claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God is circular. Most scientists are aware of the limitations of science (and the issues within science of what actually counts as evidence) and so don't suffer the cognitive dissonance you describe even if they are religious. The cognitive dissonance only occurs if you have a grossly simplified view of what science is (essentially, if you haven't moved on from positivism).
As for there being "lots of evidence for him not existing" -- I believe the expression is [citation needed].
You're right! Where would we be today without the Dark ages? The Crusades? The AIDs epidemic in Africa? The Inquisition? The Salem Witch burnings?...
The abolition of slavery, free education, social welfare...
Oh, by the way, the Church condemned witch burning (and Malleus Maleficarum was condemned as heretical). The witch burnings were almost entirely done by the secular authorities.
During what time period?
During the first 19 centuries AD cited above (and continuing).
Sure, so long it doesn't conflict with the religion. Go ask the Vatican what's their opinion on embryonic stem cell research.
Even if it conflicts with religion. As Cardinal Bellarmine (one of the inquisition who tried Galileo) wrote: "I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."
If you ask the Vatican for their opinion on embryonic stem cell research, do they disagree with you on a matter of science? Or on a matter of ethics? Do you believe that scientific research should be conducted within an ethical framework?
No, I think he's saying that he doesn't know he's right any more then you do. It really is when people claim to know they are right that problems arise. Jesus was a pretty humble guy, but despite that most Christians exhibit and disturbing lack of humility.
I think that's selection bias. Most of the Christians I know exhibit a great deal of humility, but they tend not to be noticed. Most of the Christians who get noticed as such exhibit a disturbing lack of humility.
The majority of SCIENTISTS do not have a problem with science and religion.
Probably true, although those who do have such a problem tend to be so vocal that the outside observer thinks that they speak for science as a whole.
It is the RELIGIOUS people who have a problem with science. Because it contradicts their religion.
Probably not true, although those who do have such a problem tend to be so vocal that the outside observer thinks that they speak for religion as a whole.
Or just try to get from where I am in London to the Olympic area. I can get to France quicker. Yes, Greater London is over 600 square miles, about twice the area of New York City.
Greater London may be 600 square miles (New York is actually 482 sq miles, if you include the water, which you should, since you have to go over it to get from one part of the city to another) but Greater New York is 11,842 sq miles.
The UK equivalent to Greater New York would either be "London and the Home Counties" or "The Thames Valley" (more likely the former), not "Greater London". Greater London is used for disambiguation from the "City of London" which is just over one square mile and is the financial district of Greater London. The City of London is to Greater London as Wall Street is to New York City. It's a (typically British?) quirk that we have to call what everybody thinks of as the city of London by another name because we're already using the term "the City of London" for something else.
London is MASSIVE. Seriously, look at it on a satellite photo.
Or just try to get from where I am in London to the Olympic area. I can get to France quicker. Yes, Greater London is over 600 square miles, about twice the area of New York City.
I suspect the area where the Olympics are going to be could be covered with a lot less than 70,000 cells. Anything else is just whining.
There's likely to be a lot of extra cellphone traffic in the centre of London and at the usual tourist hotspots too. But still, I'd guess that boosting the coverage over about 10% of London would probably be more than enough. Olympics visitors who spread as far as Cricklewood or Croydon are likely to be sufficiently thin on the ground as not to present a significant extra loading.
You're a bit out of date.
And culturally blinkered. Judaism and Christianity are not the only religions.
Nor is God portrayed as doing anything to get her into that situation. In that regard it's no different to any other murder.
Count: "The number of the day is i. Yes, it turns out I'm imaginary!"
I think you forget what facebook is tracking - such as you, on every website with a facebook like button across the web.
No they don't. Of course, then Google does...
What personal information do you have to give to get a Facebook account? Your first and last name (and for most people there are lots of people with the same first and last names), an email address (which can be a disposable one for this purpose), your gender (which is often guessable from your name) and your date of birth. Even if you fill them in honestly, all you are telling the world is that there's a Joe Bloggs, male, born on 20 March 1987 (or whatever) somewhere in the world. Hardly a security risk. All the risky stuff is in the optional profile and the optional postings.
Remind me not to go to Rome until I get rid of these moobs.
No, he means that accent can be used as an excuse to harass teachers who can be understood perfectly well but are not the "right" ethnic group.
Yes, sometimes something needs to be done about a person's accent. I work in an international context so I'm used to dealing with accents, but I sometimes end up with a call-centre worker that I can't understand at all. If this picks that up and they get help then that's good all round. If they ignore it because the person with the accent is the right caste, whilst using it as an excuse to make life difficult for excellent call-centre workers (yes, I've dealt with some) who are the wrong caste then it's just as bad as if they do much the same with Arizona teachers. Is it such a radical concept that something can be used for both good and bad purposes?
Of course, Facebook Blocker can access your activity on all websites, not just the ones with a Facebook button...
Yes, it was publicly-funded. I didn't challenge the regulations (because I have no particular reason to publish the thing), so I don't know the justification.
The university I studied at in the UK did not claim copyright on my dissertation, but it would be a breach of university regulations if I were to publish it, which could, in the extreme, lead to my degree being revoked. I could, of course, publish a rewritten version containing the same information.
If the school is more than 3 miles away (2 miles for under 8s), or if there is no safe walking route (eg rural roads with no pavement [en-US: sidewalk]), then they would get a school bus, or if it is an extremely rural area, a shared taxi.
Good luck with that -- we spent an age fighting our local authority over that (more than 3 miles to the school -- this was in an urban area, but my son has special educational needs and our nearby schools didn't have the facilities that the local authority agreed he needed). We never did get the transport.
What's sunshine got to do with it? As far as I can see, these are SF geeks. What would they be doing outside?