tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8756007359519328888..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Let's stop beating Basil's car: Richard Dawkins on moral responsibilityVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25757575817503311642011-11-05T08:40:41.881-07:002011-11-05T08:40:41.881-07:00Of course, didn't Dawkins also say that, becau...<i>Of course, didn't Dawkins also say that, because our genes are selfish, we have to use our brains to rise up and fight against them? Or something like that.</i><br /><br />He did say something close to this, but it hardly requires much interpretation to make sense of it, even from a deterministic perspective. Even if you believe we are mere machines, algorithmically determining our next action based on an interaction between our inherited mental machinery and the imperfect memories of our combined perceptions and experiences, his ,utterance becomes one more such experience, and hence could effect the decision making process of anyone who reads it. Not everyone who reads it, of course.<br /><br />The point is, thoughts like "I can do anything I set my mind to", or "I'm no good", or "the meritocracy is broken", or "everyone gets exactly what they deserve", can have an effect on decision making and the future life arc of someone whether you take a deterministic view or not.<br /><br />In a deterministic view they form part of the "knowledge" or "data" that is consulted in making decisions. They effect the Bayesian Belief net and it's assigned probabilities, if you will.<br /><br />In the framework of free will they presumably are part of the "nuclear reactor" of free will, the well spring of the new and independent causal chains that get initiated by the "will". Or at least they effect how this generator of new causal chains acts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38871010317584582842009-05-02T05:03:00.000-07:002009-05-02T05:03:00.000-07:00Others are noticing that Mr Dawkins is intellectua...Others are noticing that Mr Dawkins is intellectually dishonest -- Mariano (Atheism Is Dead): <A HREF="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/latest-dawkins-spanking.html" REL="nofollow">The Latest Dawkins Spanking</A>Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49145998428088077972009-04-18T07:15:00.000-07:002009-04-18T07:15:00.000-07:00Robot scientists, literally.<A HREF="http://www.aber.ac.uk/compsci/Research/bio/robotsci/" REL="nofollow">Robot scientists</A>, literally.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70085976192633928082009-04-18T06:46:00.000-07:002009-04-18T06:46:00.000-07:00Timmo: they have Duane Gish and Philip Johnson, we...Timmo: they have Duane Gish and Philip Johnson, we have Richard Dawkins (though if Dawkins is an example of the lunatic fringe of what I believe, then I'm proud to be an atheist).<br /><br />Also, those acting as if all configurations of molecules are metaphysically and morally equivalent are being silly and need philosophical counseling.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81527424151147776892009-04-18T01:48:00.000-07:002009-04-18T01:48:00.000-07:00What you're noticing is that Mr Dawkins is a walki...What you're noticing is that Mr Dawkins is a walking testiment to the absurdities that atheism must always generate.<br /><br />But, the problem/issue isn't Mr Dawkins, amusing though it is to laugh at the amusing shapes into which he must contort himself. The issue is the absurd/irrational and illogical nature (*) of God-denial.<br /><br />(*) That is, the issue is the necessary falsity of atheism, for that which is illogical is necessarily false. A thing can be logical and false, but nothing can be illogical and true.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40699428288955950102009-04-17T17:07:00.000-07:002009-04-17T17:07:00.000-07:00So when Dawkins attacks the morality of the bible,...So when Dawkins attacks the morality of the bible, does that mean he is "beating Basil's car?"<br /><br />I think so!<br /><br />WoW, Dawkins, the man who can't condemn Hitler, but calls Stalin a very bad man, and who condemns the morality in the Bible, but doesn't believe in real free will!<br /><br />Priceless. (and I ain't talking about Robert Price)dvdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00033126097937458890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76447070249698848032009-04-17T16:21:00.000-07:002009-04-17T16:21:00.000-07:00Don't you see? It makes no sense to tell Dawkins t...Don't you see? It makes no sense to tell Dawkins that it makes no sense to condemn religion. Dawkins really is like a car sometimes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57869554433425025702008-06-22T04:44:00.000-07:002008-06-22T04:44:00.000-07:00Good Job! :)Good Job! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91611863787635168202008-06-17T03:42:00.000-07:002008-06-17T03:42:00.000-07:00V.Reppert: "In fact, it isn't your fault if you ha...<B>V.Reppert:</B> "<I>In fact, it isn't your fault if you have Dawkins burned at the stake.</I>"<BR/><BR/><B>D.Chernikov:</B> "<I>Dawkins might agree with that but argue that there are advantages to you of treating him as a malfunctioning robot. It's more enlightened, will give you more happiness, etc. to try to </I>fix<I> Dawkins rather than burn him.</I>"<BR/><BR/>'Enlightenment' is meaningless to robots, for only agents/subjects can attain enlightenment -- this is one of the absurdities of Dawkins' piece: he simultaneously asserts that we *are* robots and that we *can* attain enlightenment.<BR/><BR/>While I think we can all agree that it would doubtless give Mr Dawkins more happiness (as though a robot could be happy!) to be <I>fixed</I> than to be burned -- at any rate, initially; after 10 years of being <I>fixed</I> he might well decide it had been better to be burned -- it doesn't seem at all clear to me that we (or Dawkins) can know that it would give Mr Reppert more happiness to fix Dawkins than to burn him.<BR/><BR/><BR/>It seems to me that Mr Dawkins' "argument" must always resolve to: "<I>But I don't *want/desire* to be burned!</I>" (though, of course, robots cannot actually have desires). And, since (in this scenario) he has the upper hand, Mr Reppert can always decisively "counter-argue" with: "<I>But I *do* want/desire to burn you!</I>"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19373517174084814512008-06-16T21:27:00.000-07:002008-06-16T21:27:00.000-07:00> In fact, it isn't your fault if you have Dawkins...> In fact, it isn't your fault if you have Dawkins burned at the stake.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins might agree with that but argue that there are advantages to you of treating him as a malfunctioning robot. It's more enlightened, will give you more happiness, etc. to try to <I>fix</I> Dawkins rather than burn him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80458821705635129452008-06-16T03:27:00.000-07:002008-06-16T03:27:00.000-07:00Anonymous: "[ignorant ... or dishonest ... "defens...<B>Anonymous:</B> "<I>[ignorant ... or dishonest ... "defense" of Dawkins]</I>"<BR/><BR/>How totally cool is this?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sadly, this particular Anonymouse is wrong in his "defense" of Dawkins. But, just why is that?<BR/><BR/>Is he wrong because he just doesn't have the mental wattage to *ever* understand the points raised in Mr Reppert's blog and in the original article by Mr Dawkins? While we ought to acknowledge this as a possibility, I am certain we can safely discount it as a live possibility: there are very few people in this world who really are so lacking in the ability to reason ... and those few would tend not to be able to write coherent and gramatically correct sentences.<BR/><BR/><BR/>That narrows things down to two other general options for understanding the Anonymouse's error:<BR/><BR/>1) The Anonymouse is lacking or does not understand some certain information which would enable him to see that his accusation against Mr Reppert is misplaced (and that his "defense" of Mr Dawkins fails).<BR/><BR/>2) The Anonymouse *refuses* to understand some certain information which would enable him to see that his accusation against Mr Reppert is misplaced (and that his "defense" of Mr Dawkins fails).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, of course, from the Anonymouse's single post I don't really have enough information to make an informed decision as to which of the two above options is correct. Nevertheless, I'm fairly confident that I can guess correctly. And that you, Gentle Reader, can too.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44219864326878765022008-06-16T03:23:00.000-07:002008-06-16T03:23:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78865926580502373162008-06-16T02:12:00.000-07:002008-06-16T02:12:00.000-07:00The original blog entry by Reppert is not reportin...The original blog entry by Reppert is not reporting Dawkins accurately. Dawkins is only criticizing the sort of responsibility which underlies the idea of punishment for punishment's sake, as opposed to punishment because of the positive effects it may have. This still requires some sense of responsibility, but it is somewhat attenuated from the full blown one that justifies punishment purely for the sake of punishment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84846543541258749112008-06-10T18:41:00.000-07:002008-06-10T18:41:00.000-07:00Touching (again) on "something not being on the up...Touching (again) on "something not being on the up-and-up" with respect to Hans:<BR/><BR/>In <A HREF="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-logical-argument-from-evil-dead.html#c1048571203903382421" REL="nofollow">this post</A> I bluntly (and with explanation) criticized something Hans had said.<BR/><BR/>No one likes to be criticized, I'm sure we all understand this. But one can wrap only so much velvet around a criticism and have it still be an honest criticism, honestly offered. The person offering a criticism has moral obligations ... but so does the person receiving it (beginning with not immediately disregarding it as a personal attack).<BR/><BR/>This post is <A HREF="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-logical-argument-from-evil-dead.html#c2996655423339210779" REL="nofollow">Hans' response.</A> What I want you to notice about Hans' response is that he does not respond/talk *to* me, but rather *at* me.<BR/><BR/>After that -- and because talking <I>at</I> people is something I generally associate with the constellation of mindsets of which atheism (*) is a natural part -- I began to pay a bit more attention to Hans' posts in general. And, as Matt (essentially) says somewhere or other recently, the general run of Hans' posts, when one tries to mentally join them into a single argument is ... <I>odd</I>.<BR/><BR/>Now, Hans has said in this thread that he's Dutch. Perhaps it's that Hans, being a non-native speaker of English doesn't even realize that <I>in English</I> he frequently speaks *at* others, rather than *to* them. Perhaps he doesn't understand that <I>in English</I> this comes across as an intentional and very serious insult.<BR/><BR/>And, for that matter, I don't doubt that most (natively English speaking) readers of what I've just said don't quite grasp, on the intellectual level, what they've just read -- even as they would take offence (but be unable to articulate quite why) at being shoken *at*.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>A few days ago, after Hans' posts in this thread in which we talked *at* me, I had considered returning the favor to try to get across part of the point of this post. But, while I'm quite capable of speaking *at* someone -- and, since I would <I>understand</I> what I were doing, I could do it "well" -- I'd much rather not talk *at* another, even to get a point across. So, anyway, the small exchange between Matt and me seems to furnish a background to say this, without speaking *at* Hans.<BR/><BR/><BR/>(*) Let what I wrote not be "misunderstood:" people who claim Christ are as capable of any "undesirable" behavior as atheists.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57608757108398485492008-06-10T17:53:00.000-07:002008-06-10T17:53:00.000-07:00Matt: "Like you, I still think something is up, bu...<B>Matt:</B> "<I>Like you, I still think something is up, but am going to invest my energy in something other than wondering about what that is.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Allow me to suggest one small further expense of time -- it may be of little or even no use, or it may at least be interesting: Run both your German postings and Hans' through <A HREF="http://babelfish.yahoo.com/" REL="nofollow">Babel Fish</A>.<BR/><BR/>Do you notice something in comparing the results? <BR/><BR/>Now, of course, the German you've both posted is too little to do more than raise a faint suspicion, which means this is likely pointless, even if interesting.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60086009558933527902008-06-10T17:49:00.000-07:002008-06-10T17:49:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51979228070133231092008-06-10T14:49:00.000-07:002008-06-10T14:49:00.000-07:00You're right: this has been a waste of time. My a...You're right: this has been a waste of time. My apologies to everyone for any part I've played in derailing any threads you were enjoying.<BR/><BR/>"duzen" means to address as "du", i.e. informally. Hans prefers that we stay on formal terms (which is fine - I was only trying to be friendly).<BR/><BR/>Like you, I still think something is up, but am going to invest my energy in something other than wondering about what that is.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57426049939112348082008-06-09T18:21:00.000-07:002008-06-09T18:21:00.000-07:00MattGhg: "Ilíon,You see what I mean?"Matt,I saw wh...<B>MattGhg:</B> "<I>Ilíon,<BR/><BR/>You see what I mean?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Matt,<BR/>I saw what you meant when you first asked "Hans" if he's Steven Carr. It's just that: <BR/>1) Hans did not come across to me as an atheist<BR/>2) I think sock-puppet hunting is a *huge* waste of time and attention.<BR/><BR/>Want to know something amusing? I've been accused ... for both directions ... of being an atheist sock-puppet. I was even accused of being a sock-puppet of a certain leftist atheist "Darwinist" who has (or had, if he's finally gotten over it within the past few months) a strange obsession with me.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But, as for "Hans" being an atheist sock-puppet: even aside from thinking this sort of speculation is a waste, I still don't see it quite that way.<BR/><BR/>However, I do agree that there is something about him that just doesn't fit, or isn't quite on the up-and-up.<BR/><BR/>Consider: he makes the accusation of me that "<I>Ilion claims everybody who disagrees with him must be a non-Christian</I>" -- something anyone knows I do not do -- and even as he himself is frequently doing it (in English, and now in German).<BR/><BR/>Who else might that remind you of?<BR/><BR/><BR/>By the way, what does "<I>duzen</I>" mean?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28865851785211070722008-06-09T15:53:00.000-07:002008-06-09T15:53:00.000-07:00Also, wie versprochen, jetzt entschuldige ich mich...Also, wie versprochen, jetzt entschuldige ich mich dafür, dass ich Ihnen solch einen Vorwurf gemacht habe. Aber ich muß wissen, sind Sie wirklich Christ, oder geben Sie nur vor, Christ zu sein? Denn wenn Sie wirklich Christ sind, muß ich Ihnen sagen, dass ein paar ihrer Argumente ein bisschen... seltsam... sind.<BR/><BR/>Übrigens denke ich momentan, dass Ihre Fußballmannschaft die Europameisterschaft gewinnen wird :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27669395346689307602008-06-09T13:08:00.000-07:002008-06-09T13:08:00.000-07:00'wenn Sie wirklich „Hans“ hießen,'HIESSEN? Habe ic...'wenn Sie wirklich „Hans“ hießen,'<BR/><BR/>HIESSEN? Habe ich meinen Namen in der Vergangenheit veraendert?<BR/><BR/>Ich zweifle daran, ob Jesus dieses Benehmen von Matt nachahmen wuerde.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21189080579639669102008-06-09T13:05:00.000-07:002008-06-09T13:05:00.000-07:00Ich moechte gar nicht mit Ihnen duzen.Denken Sie d...Ich moechte gar nicht mit Ihnen duzen.<BR/><BR/>Denken Sie daran, dass Hans auch ein typischer Name aus den Niederlaenden ist, und viele von uns drei Sprache sprechen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34110826331310791022008-06-09T09:37:00.000-07:002008-06-09T09:37:00.000-07:00Ilíon,You see what I mean?Hans,Sind Sie* Deutscher...Ilíon,<BR/><BR/>You see what I mean?<BR/><BR/>Hans,<BR/><BR/>Sind Sie* Deutscher? Ich stelle Ihnen diese Frage, weil „Hans“ als Vornahme typisch deutsch ist (wie Sie natürlich wissen), also ich dachte, wenn Sie wirklich „Hans“ hießen, würden Sie Deutsch sprechen. Oder? Wenn Sie aber „Steven“ heißen, und stammen aus Großbritannien, dann werden Sie wahrscheinlich kein Wort aus diesem Kommentar verstehen. <BR/><BR/>Wie gesagt, ich ahne, dass Sie Steven Carr sind. Wenn ich mich irre, dann sollten Sie mir das sagen, und ich werde mich entschuldigen.<BR/><BR/>* Wie könnten uns duzen, wenn Sie wollen.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39676930849628193222008-06-09T04:24:00.000-07:002008-06-09T04:24:00.000-07:00There was the tie-breaker.There was the tie-breaker.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62886776667274738422008-06-08T22:37:00.000-07:002008-06-08T22:37:00.000-07:00And Ilion claims everybody who disagrees with him ...And Ilion claims everybody who disagrees with him must be a non-Christian.<BR/><BR/>Not a very Christian attitude on his part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80140542603966105132008-06-08T22:36:00.000-07:002008-06-08T22:36:00.000-07:00If Ilion claims he is ursurping Jesus by claiming ...If Ilion claims he is ursurping Jesus by claiming Ilion will judge the world, and not Jesus....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com