tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post7696418415512776900..comments2020-09-26T09:08:52.862-04:00Comments on Détente: Mid Year Book Review 2010 (January - June)Clint Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00726223936040053389noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-27664744218298670992010-07-07T13:25:28.702-04:002010-07-07T13:25:28.702-04:00Bruce - I am reaching the end of my patience with ...Bruce - I am reaching the end of my patience with you. If you cannot understand my personal beliefs about morality at this point then you likely never will.<br /><br />When asked if you would fuck children, eat people, steal, and lie in a godless world you had this to say:<br /><br /><i>"i don't really have a category for what i would do in that situation"</i><br /><br />Wow, Bruce. WOW. I think we've now gotten a clear picture of the kind of moral vaccuum you dwell in. I sincerely hope for your sake, and for the sake of your neighbors and their children, that you remain enslaved to your delusions.Clint Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00726223936040053389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-34599692650759162182010-07-05T10:42:44.871-04:002010-07-05T10:42:44.871-04:00couple of responses:
1. yes, in a godless world i...couple of responses:<br /><br />1. yes, in a godless world i think all of those things would be the norm and not the exception, though i don't really have a category for what i would do in that situation<br /><br />2. on the question of happiness, what you've just outlined, so far as i understand it, and please correct me if i'm wrong, is that each individual is his own judge and that beauty, pleasure, ethics all derive from his personal happiness with the following statement: if X makes me happy then it is a worthwhile pursuit. you then gave a take away, but only if it does NOT affect the communal happiness. did i restate that correctly? kind of a combination of Objectivism and Utilitarianism?brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17287175924460584434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-42927009406939968282010-07-03T15:39:39.953-04:002010-07-03T15:39:39.953-04:00"lastly, your response to the tearing down co...<i>"lastly, your response to the tearing down comment, that religious people tear down to, isn't really dealing with the question or criticism. i agree, religious people tear down also. so what?"</i><br /><br />I dealt with the question perfectly by trying to show you that tearing down dogmatism IS leading people towards skepticism and rational criticism. Out of the bronze age and into the age of reason. It is leading people towards openly valuing physical evidence and reasoned logic rather than appeals to authority or ignorance.<br /><br />That's what.Clint Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00726223936040053389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-19924481466274893952010-07-03T14:49:54.771-04:002010-07-03T14:49:54.771-04:00Bruce - I stand corrected on your assessment of Eh...Bruce - I stand corrected on your assessment of Ehrman. <br /><br />As far a your continued questions about meaning, I'm hesitant to even dignify those questions with a response. Just because you can order words into a sentence that makes a question doesn't mean the question makes sense or is worth answering. But here goes.<br /><br /><i>"i want to know WHY music is meaningful to you and why that is something you think you should privilege over other things."</i><br /><br />Music is meaningful to me because it makes me happy. It also makes other people happy. That is enough.<br /><br /><i>"why should you not find meaning in sex with young boys, or with eating other humans, or with stealing, or with lying?"</i><br /><br />I don't find meaning in sex with children, eating people, stealing, or lying because those things do not make me happy. Meaning is subjective and therefore I recognize that some people do value those things. Because those things are fringe values that are detrimental to community happiness, those people are taken out of communities. And rightly so. <br /><br /><i>"what is meaningful about a bunch of neural connections?"</i><br /><br />Neural connections have no objective meaning. The materials of life have marvelously combined to form humans with consciousness. Out of consciousness we have evolved a system of pain values and happiness. I've now clearly explained to you what makes me happy and why.<br /><br />The inverse of your question presents a problem for you. I will frame it in a question. If there were no god, would you fuck young boys, eat people, steal, or lie? Is a belief in a bronze age god really keeping you from doing those things?<br /><br />It seems that acknowledging the lack of evidence for god, the supernatural, or objective morality encourages a more intellectually honest approach to meaning. It puts the responsibility for building a better existence squarely on your shoulders, where it absolutely belongs.Clint Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00726223936040053389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-60536514260137224722010-07-02T13:25:01.211-04:002010-07-02T13:25:01.211-04:00erhman's opinion of the origins of the NT are ...erhman's opinion of the origins of the NT are widely accepted. what's not widely accepted is what the textual history means and the motives behind what drove that textual history.<br /><br />i've read a good amount of Ehrman so i'm not making a real blind assessment here.<br /><br />lastly - i want to know WHY music is meaningful to you and why that is something you think you should privilege over other things. For instance - why should you not find meaning in sex with young boys, or with eating other humans, or with stealing, or with lying? And if the apprehension of beauty and the joy thereby (what i assume is part of what's meaningful about music) why is that meaningful if it's only a bunch of neural connections?<br /><br />lastly, your response to the tearing down comment, that religious people tear down to, isn't really dealing with the question or criticism. i agree, religious people tear down also. so what?brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17287175924460584434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-83040569704964173562010-07-01T14:23:27.095-04:002010-07-01T14:23:27.095-04:00Brian - I'm about to start reading those other...Brian - I'm about to start reading those other Ehrman books as well. What do you thinka about Bruce's opinion of Ehrman? <br /><br />It seems to me that many of his points are indisputable, despite a disaffection for his emotionally charged writing. His description of the origins of the New Testament is widely recognized in the community of biblical scholars. I was even taught some of that stuff in my super conservative bible college. <br /><br />And as far as the "tearing down" criticism, just think of the thousands of books published a year by religious writers condemning other religions and nonbelievers. Most religions make incompatible claims about reality. Browse an apologetics section in a seminary library. The annals of religious literature are filled with accusations about who is right and who is wrong. What's worse, the soil of the Earth is soaked in blood over the same disagreements. <br /><br />This is hardly analagous to promoting skepticism and ratiionality, which is all Ehrman is doing.Clint Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00726223936040053389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-61031419078798686182010-06-30T18:57:19.724-04:002010-06-30T18:57:19.724-04:00bruce - There was a period when I was reading a lo...bruce - There was a period when I was reading a lot of philosophy. I had a bit of a romance with several of the existentialist thinkers. These days the only philosophy I really delve into are Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell and Daniel Dennett. I’m generally pretty bored by philosophy, honestly. I’d much rather read about science and experience. I’m not saying it’s better. It’s just my personal preference. <br /><br />I subscribe to methodological naturalism and pearlism simply because they have the greatest track record of success in building models that correspond to observable reality. But I also regard methodological naturalism and pearlism with a slight posture of skepticism as well. If supernatural phenomena were to present themselves to me tomorrow I would take it very seriously, as would most people like me who value observable reality.<br /><br /><i>How do you explain joy, sadness, love, connection, history, meaningfulness [sic] of your actions, the 'why' of life - without ever entering into philosophy?</i><br /><br />Evolutionary biology provides many reasonable naturalistic explanations for emotions like joy, sadness and love. Neurobiology has taught us that these things are purely material constructs of our brains. For instance, you can damage certain parts of your brain and not only stop loving your spouse of fifty years but also have no recollection of ever knowing them. Studies have shown that there are vast and intricate neurological centers in our brain for all of our emotions. <br /><br />Meaningfulness and the “why of life” are really great questions. I think it’s really important when talking about meaning not to lose sight of the fact that believing in things for poor reasons gets us no closer to answering our deepest questions. In fact, things like pseudoscience and religion, in my opinion, are inhibitors to getting to the bottom of those questions. For the human species the search for meaning continues and at this point the most intellectually honest thing one can say in answer is “I don’t know." And we may never know. <br /><br />Personally, I find meaning in my life when I make music. When I spend time with people that I love and am loved by. Beholding the cosmos and basking in an overwhelmingly prosperous age of scientific achievement. About 98% of all humanity have never flown on an airplane or seen a galaxy explode or watched a motion picture or wasted numerous hours laughing into the night at YouTube videos. There is meaning in grace and giving and human solidarity. There is meaning in being affected by kindness and spreading it around. None of these things require unfounded beliefs in father figure gods who live outside of space and time. We are here and now in the wonderful world of naturalism. <br /><br />I don’t think you’re in the best position to judge the authors’ intent after admitting that you have not read their work, particularly with Ehrman. Speculation about Ehrman’s motives is as subjective as its source. You may not consider his work to be leading anyone towards anything. That’s fine. But why can’t you see that leading someone out of something might also be leading them towards something else? Ehrman and many of the atheists I read are not trying to brainwash people. They are encouraging people to think skeptically about long held beliefs that have been, for the most part, immune to criticism. The horrifying marriage of religious fundamentalism and destructive technology has caused a reasonable sense of urgency in the nontheistic community. Not an urgency for intolerance, but for critical thinking and conversational, social pressure. Because if religion is stripped of its armor it simply will not survive in the marketplace of ideas. This will be progress for human kind.Clint Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00726223936040053389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-14347585208635216642010-06-30T18:37:18.588-04:002010-06-30T18:37:18.588-04:00i obviously don't agree with all of this, but ...i obviously don't agree with all of this, but here's an interesting piece, referencing dawkins, and one of my favorite Wittgenstein, on the use of soul talk in the university. I think this guy is buddhist. again - i'm not endorsing all the conclusions or the methodology, just trying to highlight some of the questions he's asking - http://chronicle.com/article/Soul-Talk/65278/brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17287175924460584434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-45147029584567070362010-06-30T17:18:22.102-04:002010-06-30T17:18:22.102-04:00have you ever considered tackling some philosophy,...have you ever considered tackling some philosophy, particularly philosophy of meaning and language. i've gone on and on about the Kuhn book, structure of scientific revolutions. what about E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, or Derrida - Writing and Difference, or on the religious level Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in this Text, or how about some sociology of religion Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy. These are all categories that Ehrman is ignoring in many respects.<br /><br />I guess i don't see how you are ever going to make the move from evidential rationilism and materialism or scientism (what you call pearlism, is there a difference? have you read Comte?) to meaning. How do you explain joy, sadness, love, connection, history, meaninfulness of your actions, the 'why' of life - without ever entering into philosophy?<br /><br />The authors you're reading at the moment seem to me to be a lot better at tearing down than at building up. Ehrman isn't looking to lead people towards something, he seems hell bent on making sure they don't follow down the road of orthodoxy. Same with Hitchens and Dawkins from my reading. They're not positing a philosophy or trying to explain meaning (and to the extent they do they've been laughed at at the academy - basically a ton of the criticism against these guys is they're killer scientist and terrible philosophers, which may simply be academic penis envy, butit seems a pretty consistent critique).<br /><br />so, i'd like to hear it from you - why does your life, this life having meaning. where does an ethic and more importantly an aesthetic come from a pearlist perspective.brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17287175924460584434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-41200479944810460932010-06-30T13:42:45.649-04:002010-06-30T13:42:45.649-04:00Bruce - we'll see. I plan on reading his other...Bruce - we'll see. I plan on reading his other books this year.Clint Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00726223936040053389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20989339.post-24785399272192602742010-06-30T13:17:08.709-04:002010-06-30T13:17:08.709-04:00i've not read that Ehrman but i have read the ...i've not read that Ehrman but i have read the orthodox corruption scripture, numerous essays and textual criticism about greek texts, lost scriptures, and a handfull of others. he's obviously extremely intelligent and a killer textual critic. that said, please recognize his conclusions are on the fringes of mainstream textual criticism and history. the book he wrote with bruce metzger in 2005 would be a much more balanced approach since metzger dampens some of ehrman's fundamentalist tendencies.<br /><br />read lots of ehrman and you learn he's got a pretty big ax to grind and it permeates all of his writing.brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17287175924460584434noreply@blogger.com