Total posts: 399
-->
@Reece101
The same issues you bring up to ague against bimodal, effect the binary system more
How does it get close to impacting the binary system?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Morality is the domain of the rational being, not the feeling one. A tiger can not be good or evil, so to with a dinosaur. So, I struggle to understand what, precisely, you are trying to say when you ask "Why was God amoral about Dinosaurs?" How can one concern themselves with to good and evil of a species that such concepts don't apply?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
That is a very uncharitable interpretation of what I am saying. I used those as examples as they are the easiest to imagine (and see why your bimodal model doesn't work).
Gametes (and the 'plumbing') are primary, secondary would be other traits like secondary sex characteristics, and tertiary would be characteristics like height differences, average body temperature differences, etc.
More variation exists in tertiary traits than secondary, which has more variation than in primary. There is literally zero dispute on this in biology and the philosophy of biology when it comes to non-human species, why is it such an issue the moment we treat humans the same?
Also, you are the one advocating for a bimodal model, so what, precisely, would you use as a definition about what constitutes a mana and a woman then? What are the traits that are on a spectrum if you want to take issue with the examples of traits on a bimodal spectrum that I gave?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I know what bimodal is, but you are ignoring that 'kinds' do not need to share every trait in common to be of the same kind.
Furthermore, creating a spectrum of traits in order to create the sense that sex is bimodal has its issues.
We can look at height, which has sex differences. Men tend to, on average, be taller than women. Should that be a trait on a spectrum then?
Is a 6'3" woman less of a woman due to her height? Is a 5'2" man less of a man?
We can even do this with other traits.
Is a woman with DD sized breasts more of a woman than one with only C-cups?
Is a man with an 8 incher more of a man than one with only 5 inches?
If we put these traits on a spectrum to create a bimodal distribution, you must say 'yes' to all of these questions, and this would create not only inaccurate categorizations but also would be quite offensive to some people.
Instead, it would be more appropriate to say "certain shared traits between men and women are bimodal" and not "sex is bimodal". Sexual categories can still be defined off certain traits with an understanding that you don't need every single one of them to be a man or be a woman. If you do this then you cannot call a woman less of a woman for having a flatter chest or being very tall. She would just have certain traits more typical of men while being the same 'kind' as a woman (and thus being a woman).
Created:
-->
@Reece101
How would that create a difference between binary and bimodal?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Within the Philosophy of Science it is understood that there exist typical traits for a kind but that deviations can occur. Not all traits will be present in every member of the set, but there are still typical traits that are assigned to said set.
This is why you can describe humans as having two arms, for example, yet a human can be born that lacks one arm or has an extra finger one one hand and still be classified as the same kind of being. It doesn't change that humans are a kind of being that has two arms, 5 fingers on each hand, etc.
This is also applicable to men and women. This is why, as an example, a woman can be born and not develop breasts and still be the same 'kind' as other women.
People with intersex conditions still, ultimately, are built around either male or female gametes, even if the 'plumbing' is not fully developed. Even in instances where one is born with both a teste and an ovary the plumbing is built around the production of one of them. Because of this they would still fall within the same 'kind' as either a man or woman, even if it might not be immediately apparent which category they do belong to.
As such, sex is still binary (based primarily around gametes) and not bimodal.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I know that it has become popular to call sex bimodal rather than binary, but that is because of an attempt to say that intersex people do not properly fall in the binary. The issue is that this ignores what 'kinds' are in order to do so.
And the philosophy I was using is the Philosophy of Science. I don't see how it is not appropriate to use philosophy to understand a term, and to dismiss points from the Philosophy of Science in a discussion on a scientific topic just for being philosophical also seems misplaced to me.
Created:
-->
@thett3
It’s such an absurd standard to set that unless 100% of women possess all of the traits we ascribe to women there’s no meaningful definition of woman. It’s not how anatomy works.
Late to the party, but exactly this.
Within the Philosophy of Science there is the concept of a kind of thing, which are increasingly understood to be centered around the concept of Homeostatic Property Clusters. To quote from the SEP,
"Homeostatic property clusters (HPCs) occur when mechanisms exist that cause the properties to cluster by ensuring that deviations from the cluster have a low chance of persisting; the presence of some of the properties in the cluster favours the presence of the others"
This is exactly what you have been arguing. A natural kind, within the Philosophy of Science, would be able to be defined as something containing a set of traits while it being understood that certain members don't contain every one of those traits. We can apply this same exact concept to human sex and everything you are saying here becomes vindicated.
Women/females are structured around production of large gametes (ova)and typically have certain sexually dimorphic traits. Men/males are structured around production of small gametes (sperm) and typically have certain sexually dimorphic traits.
With this understanding of male and female and even this understanding of what natural kinds are, even intersex people end up squarely within the sex binary. Sure, certain intersex conditions might make it hard to properly identify one's sex when they are a baby, but that doesn't mean that they fall outside the sexual binary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not arguing a position here, so no, I don't. I have to address arguments made, as otherwise I would be suspending judgement despite evidence, but unless I choose to take a position then I am not obligated to provide an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why would that make god amoral and not malicious? It could be that god is concerned with what is right and wrong, that god has a moral sense and yet is not benevolent. God, in this hypothetical, might allow good in the world for higher order evils to exist and to maximize the pain from when evil is done unto others. This god would be, by definition, not amoral. He would be concerned about right and wrong, he just doesn't choose to maximize rightness/goodness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You need to make an argument and not just an assertion, otherwise there is no rational reason to accept anything you are saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You realize you are arguing that god is amoral, right? That means that both a benevolent and a malicious god would be counters to your OP (and even a god that is concerned about right and wrong but is neutral on the matter would be a counter), not just a benevolent one.
I also don't have a burden of proof yet, as I said I am suspending judgement (which means I did not assert that there is a benevolent god either). I can remain unconvinced that god is amoral without being convinced that god is benevolent, malicious, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
But should we not also suspend judgement on qualities of the god concept until such a time that an argument can be soundly made? Sort of being agnostic on the qualities as well.
Sure, a concept can have some inherent qualities to it, but it does not seem you are arguing that the god concept is necessarily defined as amoral but that a consequence of the inherent qualities makes a god amoral if it exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am addressing the soundness of the argument rather than my position, but let's go under the hypothetical that I don't have my own views and have just learned about the god concept.
The default state after having been exposed to an idea is pure agnosticism and the argument you presented is not sound, so I am not going to stop suspending judgement on the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I mean, I would say it is a non-sequitur, and the fact that you didn't specify a theistic god rather than a deistic one (or really any specification that would help), I think that it is only logical to conclude that there is no rational justification to accept the conclusion.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think that is the way to go. So often do people in the US want the federal government to take care of everything. Hell, so many on the left keep calling for a national, single payer, health care financing system when basically no country does it that way.
Yet you will hear them insist that it is the model used all over the place.
It is because there is too much emphasis on doing things on a federal level. So, you blue states want more welfare? Go ahead, just keep it state level and not federal level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Are there people that claim to have encountered angels? Yes.
Plug it in and we get the result Absent of counter-evidence, these people likely had a true experience of angels.
So, is there some sort of counter-evidence? If not, then I guess that means that we are justified in believing in angels as well.
If there is some sort of counter-evidence then that would mean that, in light of the counter evidence, we aren't justified in believing in angels.
________________________________________________________________
Of course, corroborating evidence can be given to strengthen the position (just like counter-evidence can refute it), and this is where I think things like the first cause argument work well in regards to god(s) existing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Where the problem lies is for some reason atheists think that religion should be debated via science even though religion has nothing to do with science.
I agree. So often do atheists online hold to logical positivism, a self-defeating epistemological view that hasn't had acceptance in mainstream philosophy for decades.
That is also why I think the argument I presented is a good one, because despite not giving verifiable evidence in the way the logical positivist might want, the only premises that can be denied lead to different issues if denied. If someone is willing to deny them, then it is a sign that either they are a solipsist (in which case there are other issues) or they are claiming that they, themselves, cannot be trusted (in which case their opinions are worthless).
It doesn't get to a definitive result of theism, but it doesn't need to.
Created:
Posted in:
INTRODUCTION
Often we find atheists and, to a lesser extent, agnostics in the online debate sphere demand that the verification principle is the only rational way of establishing whether or not god(s) exist. I would like to counter that idea with an argument I think is both the most sound argument for god while also being one of the weakest, the argument that people have experienced god(s).
I know that when this is first seen that many people will be quick to judge that it is a weak argument, but I hope that we can take the time to go over the premises first. This argument can be broken down, ultimately, into two parts. Part One is establishing that using Reid's Principle of Credulity is rational. Part Two is showing short and to the point, applying it to god(s). I will also preemptively address a common criticism of the argument in a Part Three.
PART ONE
“In absence of counter-evidence — we should believe that things are as they seem to be.” - Richard Swinburne
The above quote comes from the philosopher Richard Swinburne, one of the main proponents of the argument for god from Reid's Principle of Credulity. It helps outline what, precisely, the principle is. It helps with establishing the position that one should tentatively hold to. This is why, despite thinking the argument is sound, I hold that it is a weak argument for the existence of god(s), as when it stands on its own any proper counter-evidence defeats it. This is also why I feel the argument is useful, as it forces the atheist and the agnostic to have to provide counter-evidence. No longer would the defense of "lack of belief due to no evidence" be justified. One of the strengths of the argument, in my mind, is that we all already make use of this principle in our day-to-day lives, even if we aren't really aware of it.
In this part I will go over three different premises and how they all lead to the principle's validation.
P1) Your senses tend to be accurate.
P2) You are honest more often than you are dishonest.
C1) If you claimed to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, you likely had a true experience of X.
P3) There is no justification that the above is not universal.
C2) If someone claims to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, they likely had a true experience of X.
The strength of this argument is that denial of P1 or P2 will lead to different issues while P3's denial requires the use of the special pleading fallacy. To avoid fallacious logic and avoid logical traps you must accept all three premises, which means accepting the conclusion of the argument. To explain,
Rejection of P1 leads to solipsism, as if your senses tend to be inaccurate or are only accurate half the time then you will never be justified believing anything you observe is true. How, then, can you hold any justified beliefs about the external world? You cannot, as any piece of evidence cannot be justifiably believed.
As such, if you wish to avoid solipsism you must accept P1. This means that your senses tend to be accurate, which results in the conclusion that you should believe your senses unless you have a justified reason to doubt (counter-evidence).
Rejection of P2 also is a trap. If you reject P2 you must either choose the view that you are dishonest more often than you are honest or that you are dishonest and honest an equal amount.
If you reject it by claiming "you are dishonest more than you are honest" then it leads to the conclusion that we cannot trust that any statement you make is true without corroborating evidence, but that includes your statement that "you are dishonest more than you are honest." Since we cannot trust that that statement was made honestly, it is justified to think that you do not actually believe that "you are dishonest more than you are honest".
Even claiming to be honest and dishonest evenly does not avoid this issue, as it means we must suspend judgement on any statement you make until there is reason to accept, including whether you are honest and dishonest evenly.
We can have a thought experiment as well, is this a case you are being honest or dishonest? If dishonest, then we now know that you are either honest more or less often than dishonest, which goes back to the previous point where we end up unjustified thinking that you are dishonest more than you are honest. Since that is justified and the thought experiment is that your statement about being honest and dishonest evenly is false, that means we can conclude that you are, in fact, honest more often than dishonest (and that this dishonesty happens to just be an example of the minority of statements you make).
If, in our thought experiment, we assume that the statement is held in true belief then it leads to the conclusion that (absent corroborating evidence) we are unjustified in actually believing it is held in true belief.
This means that the only justified view is that, regardless of what you say, you actually accept P2.
Furthermore, rejecting P2 is not at all pragmatic when it comes to living your daily life. If you reject P2 and do not live your life as if you reject it, it raises doubts on if you actually reject P2. As people tend to live pragmatic lives, then unless we have corroborating evidence, we are yet again justified in thinking that you actually accept P2 regardless of what you say.
A consequence of P2 is that what you say should be believed to have been said with honesty unless we have reason to believe otherwise (counter-evidence).
So, since your senses tend to be accurate (which results in the conclusion that you should believe your senses) and you tend to be honest (which means we should trust your statements to be made honestly unless we have reason to believe otherwise), we can conclude that "If you claimed to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, you likely had a true experience of X".
Since we cannot make use of the special pleading fallacy to say that this is somehow a unique characteristic of you, we must extend this universally. This means that we can conclude that "If someone claims to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, they likely had a true experience of X".
This means we have validated Reid's Principle of Credulity.
PART TWO
This is a short segment that has one premise that should be uncontroversial,
P4) People have claimed to have had an experience of god(s).
C3) Absent of counter-evidence, these people likely had a true experience of god(s).
If part 1 is sound and P4 is true, then C3 must be true. From here it is a question on if the atheist or agnostic can provide counter-evidence. If none can be provided then the logical conclusion is that we should tentatively hold to theism as true.
PART THREE
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
The above quote from Carl Sagan is not uncommon in the online religious debate sphere, where the god claim is often called an extraordinary claim. A common rejection I have seen to the above is that Reid's Principle of Credulity might be evidence, but it isn't extraordinary evidence and thus cannot be used to argue for the existence of god(s) (as the god claim is labeled as extraordinary).
I would contest that this argument actually works. In fact, I believe that in order to justify the view that the god claim is an extraordinary one would require you to provide evidence/reasoning that would already act as the counter-evidence that the argument already accounts for. To explain, in order to say a claim is extraordinary rather than ordinary you must either draw the line arbitrarily (which makes the label unjustified), appeal to something internal to the claim that makes it extraordinary, or appeal to something external to the claim that makes it extraordinary.
I would argue that you cannot point to something internal to the claim that makes it extraordinary. This is because if the justification was internal to the claim, then the context of when or where the claim is made does not change whether it is ordinary or extraordinary. This just is not the case, however. For example, if I say I will be visiting South Korea in a few days and will be back in just over a week that is an ordinary claim today, but 200 years ago that would be extraordinary. Another example, let's say that I saw a floating city. Extraordinary claim, right? But let's say the same exact claim was made in a stereotypical high fantasy world, not that extraordinary anymore.
What this means is that justification for the label "extraordinary claim" can only be something outside of the claim itself. Whatever you appeal to would constitute evidence that said claim is false or unlikely. This means that it isn't that the claim is extraordinary, it is just that the claim already has counter-evidence. In order to justify the label of a claim being extraordinary you will need to provide that counter-evidence, but in doing so you are already operating in-line with the argument (as it only concludes that the claim should be held in absence of counter-evidence).
I want to address one more quote by Carl Sagan as well,
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan
This is one I absolutely agree with. Absence of evidence alone is not evidence of absence unless you can construct a proper modus tollens. This means that, unless you provide a sound modus tollens, you cannot appeal to "lack of evidence" (using whatever criteria you give as to what evidence is) as being justification for the claim being an extraordinary one. Lack of evidence is not counter-evidence, it is only a lack.
CONCLUSION
With this argument it ends up with the atheist or agnostic needing to now provide justification for their position in the debate. Counter-evidence needs to be provided or else theism is rationally concluded as true (tentatively). Not only must counter-evidence be provided, but they also must defend against arguments that it is not, in fact, counter-evidence. That is the strength of this argument, it makes it so no longer is the theist playing defense but the atheist and agnostic is.
I know this argument will be unconvincing to most people, but it is important to remember that an argument can both be sound and also be unconvincing. We are not purely rational beings after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
race isn't a social construct... 'race realism' is using science that on its own shouldn't be deemed racist
That is all I really wanted from this thread.
Mostly because I am tired of so many people taking on Social Constructivism so universally and treating anyone that doesn't as a bigot.
The idea that there isn't a genuine component to race, gender, etc. is just mind boggling to me, yet I see so many people act as if it is obvious that they are 100% socially constructed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you saying only that the scientific findings shouldn't be taboo or are you saying that stratifying society based on those findings shouldn't be taboo?
I am saying the findings should not be taboo.
Everyone should be judged as an individual, not as part of any group.
The findings usefulness comes in when you look at outcomes as a way of trying to determine opportunity (which many on the left do), nothing more.
There should be equality of opportunity for all people regardless of race.
The nature components will simply mean that we shouldn't be surprised that more people in athletic programs are African, or more people that get into Harvard are Southeast Asian (if they stopped their racist policy of only accepting a certain number), etc.
We shouldn't implement policies to try and change this, to make it more 'equitable' as doing such necessarily ruins a fair equality of opportunity.
Of course, this doesn't mean, for example, that you should only accept Africans into athletics, as many non-Africans can, due to nurture components, meet the criteria as well. Only that outcomes not matching population isn't something to worry about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What you will find is that the averages differing is also hugely environmental but yes there is a genetic component.
I agree, there is both nurture and nature. You, however, think that nurture plays the biggest role while Dr. Pinker thinks nature does. My stance is that we don't have enough research to know one way or the other, and thus cannot make an accurate guess (and thus statistics on outcomes are almost entirely useless).
Do you not think it's likely, not just possible, that certain brains within ethnicities that emphasise intelligence less in upbringing had the capabilities to be Einstein and/or Tesla?
I have no idea. I do think that if there are races or ethnicities that have a genetic component for higher intelligence then, we would expect that 100 most intelligent people to be mostly comprised of individuals with these genes, with the possible very rare exception for people with genes that lead to the lower end of intelligence.
That isn't to say that the smartest people with genes for lower intelligence wouldn't be smarter than the averages of all people, humans are more the same than different. It is at the extremes where differences are made apparent (like with Olympic level sprinters).
What I mean is that you will find there are two fundamental ways humans evolved to be smart; either they evolved to estimate and calculate deep (hiding and hunting stealthy prey) or they evolved to calculate and estimate fast (open-plain environment). Blacks of Africa were in extremely open-plain scenarios where absolutely nothing mattered more than endurance, literally. How far you could run, how long you could chase down and then carry your prey's body back to your tribe, how long you could last in a straightforward fight, these are the things that mattered in Africa. The only element of intellect required here was speedy tactics, therefore what was naturally selected was entirely based around that. In Asia, you had to memorise which trees are likely to have predators lurking in them, which areas are fantastic to find prey, which sounds among other sounds to listen out for that would warn you of a stealthier predator and on top of this you had to have the very same expertise and ability in hand-to-hand combat as the Africans did (especially in East Asia which was prone to massively brutal clan-on-clan combat). So this environment naturally selected for people who could memorise well and calculate fast, regularly, not just strength.
So, you do agree that mental characteristics also differ across race or ethnicities and not just physical (height, sprinting speed, etc.)?
When you say 'smarter, therefore superior'
Never said that nor would I ever say that.
My only interest is in what characteristics have nature components and how much of an impact they have in outcomes. This is because so many try and use outcomes to determine if there is a systemic issue (or cultural issue) that leads to this inequity, but they assume that nature components do not play a role in these outcomes.
For example, we know that the more aggressive someone is the more likely they are to commit violent crimes, and thus more likely to end up in prison. Men are more aggressive than women, on average, but this means when you look at the top 1% of aggressive people in the world it will be mostly men. Thus, it is no surprise that men are placed in prison more often than women, this is expected on some level due to nature components.
A question that can be asked is if such nature components exist along other lines as well. Some studies link higher testosterone to higher aggression, and so groups with higher average testosterone may well be more aggressive on average and have higher representation in prison. Some studies suggest that Africans have higher average testosterone than other racial or ethnic categories. As such, there is a genuine question on if (assuming these studies are accurate for now) higher representation of Africans in prison in comparison to population levels in society is an expected outcome, if it is a sign of systemic racism, or some other component (or a mix of these).
Many on the left look at these statistics and say that it is proof of systemic racism as that is the only possible explanation, and they deny any nature component could be a factor as well.
There are many racists that try and use race realism to say that it is due entirely to nature.
I think there is a genuine question on how much could be due to nature, and thus, with that knowledge, have an easier time seeing how much of a role other factors are at play (whether cultural factors, systemic racism, etc.).
Maybe it is the case that there are no nature components, but the issue is that this type of information just isn't known. Funding of this type of research would almost certainly never happen in today's political climate. There are even academics that have gone on record saying that if such information was made aware to them that they would lie and say that such information doesn't exist in order to prevent racism from getting any level of justification.
My worry, and why I think race realism is important on some level, is because people are trying to change policy and law based on statistics with the assumption that race is entirely a social construct and that there are no nature components. If nature components are a factor in some of these statistics and we use legislation and policy to get as close to 'representation based on population' without factoring in these components, then we very well could be destroying equality of opportunity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you give me examples of observations within 'race realism' and proponents of it that aren't racist?
Dr. Steven pinker is obviously not a racist, and he takes the view that there are genetic differences between races that lead to different outcomes via nature. One of the things he points out is that Jews, regardless of where they live in the world, tend to have higher average intellect than the population around them, and he attributes this, in part, to genetics.
One thing I have an issue with is that it's called 'race realism' as opposed to 'ethnic observations'.
I do not know why it was called such initially, but I think the term gained traction as a counter to the 'race is a social construct' argument that people make.
The whole 'race is a social construct' argument tends to be that differences between races that are observed are due to social and cultural reasons, and that 'race' itself is something that is constructed by society.
Race realism, on the other hand, holds that there is a real component behind 'race' and that differences can, in part, be attributed to this real component.
To me, it seems almost like a parallel of the debate on metaphysical realism vs anti-realism.
Race realism ultimately stems from a type of metaphysical realism applied to 'race'. So, to me it makes sense that it is called Race Realism.
The whole 'race is a social construct', on the other hand, almost always stems from social constructivism, which stems from a form of anti-realism (that isn't to say there haven't been attempts at moving constructivism into the realm of realism, just that none of these attempts have been particularly convincing).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The funny thing is I'm actually less convinced of race realism than many liberals probably are, in their heart of hearts. I believe in a soft form of it, that what we consider to be "race" is socially constructed but genes are not distributed evenly between "races", so some of the differences we see are definitely genetic. But culture and environment together account for at least 50%, from what I've seen.
This honestly speaks to what my main issues with so many proponents and critics of race realism is.
So many critics try and have all differences boil down to aspects of nurture, so many proponents try and have all differences boil down to aspects of nature.
It is all one or all the other, so few are willing to say that both nature and nurture play a role.
The question is how much does nature play a role in comparison to nurture? How much would it impact statistics of outcome? The problem is that this type of research would never get funding because it isn't politically correct to even suggest that nature might play a role in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
A clip of Dr. Steven Pinker arguing that racism is not justified under race realism:
There are, of course, more aspects of this argument not in the clip. It is just a segment that quickly goes over it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think you should start by defining Race Realism.
Race Realism is essentially metaphysical realism applied to race, and that there are different races. The idea that 'race is a social construct' almost always stems from a sort of metaphysical anti-realism.
In another sense, it is the idea that some of the difference in outcomes between races stems from real qualities about nature. Look at the world's best sprinters, for example. Regardless of the culture they are raised in (aka, a variety of nurture elements) there is a tendency for one particular race to be "over-represented" among these world class sprinters.
This is not to say that nurture does not play a role, but that one cannot ignore nature. As such, using statistics of 'outcomes' to determine policy (when attempting to make a fair equality of opportunity) is flawed if you do not account for the nature elements. How much nature is an influence would be something that needs to be studied.
Do you have some kind of established academic source that backs your definition of the term as opposed to dictionaries and encyclopedias?
Off the top of my head, I can think of Dr. Steven Pinker. He has been very clear that one should not use 'the realities of racial differences' as justification for racism. He is an academic that has stood by Race Realism for quite some time now, that such differences does not lead to being able to make moral judgements. He also tends to feel like nurture plays a much more insignificant role than I think is justified, but he does so by using studies with twins, siblings, adoptions, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
Why do critics of Race Realism frame the idea as inherently attacking the dignity of people based on race?
So often I find people criticize Race Realism by trying to tie it as inherently racist in nature, but I do not see why. When science discusses that men are, on average, more aggressive than women, or women are, on average, more empathetic than men it is not seen as inherently sexist, nor is it seen as justification for sexism. It is understood that just because men and women are different in some aspects that it doesn't change the moral value of the individual, the dignity of the sexes is not in threat.
However, when people try to talk about how people of different races might be, on average, different due, in part, to nature it is seen as inherently racist, an attack on the moral value of the individual, etc.
Why does this happen? If Race Realism is true it does not follow that any race is morally of greater importance, it just means that there are differences. It doesn't justify racism, just like differences between men and women doesn't justify sexism. Yet that is consistently brought up by many who oppose the idea of Race Realism.
So why is this so often brought up as if there is an inherent link?
Created:
Posted in:
Why do you use this definition of atheist (the Flew definition)? It is a definition rejected by essentially all academics in the Philosophy of Religion, yet it is common to find laypeople on the internet use this definition of atheist. Within academia the definition of atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", yet so often when this definition is mentioned online it seems 'atheists' almost take offense to it and get defensive of the 'lack of belief' definition.
Why is this? Why hold onto a definition that is rejected by academics? Especially those here, on a website designed for debating? Why not use the definitions used in academia?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you point out the supernatural element that can't be denied in that story? Otherwise it does look like a coincidence. Spectacularly unlikely, but not supernatural.
Why is it required for the supernatural to be proven beyond doubt? Why can it not be the case that the supernatural is seen as more likely but that natural causes are also possible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is the wrong way of viewing things, monotheists and polytheists make the same claim but differently.
There is a set of things called 'god'. Atheists claim the set is empty, monotheists and polytheists think the set is not empty.
Monotheists claim there is a set of things called god that has one thing inside of it, polytheists say the same but say multiple things are inside of it.
To view the polytheist claims of multiple gods as being inherently less parsimonious is similar to saying that physicists that reject the single-electron theory hold to an unparsimonious view. It is a mistaken application of parsimony that ignores syntactic simplicity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I didn't really focus on the atheist position in the OP but on the monotheist vs polytheist aspect. I am working on a different post on the atheist vs theist aspect, but I am unsure when I will get it all typed up as I am also working on an epistemology post and a cosmology post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not. I even specified it was a white british lawyer who did it and it was the issue of systemic racism in the legal enforcement that I was focusing on.
If your goal is to show that BLM is actually useful and that systemic racism is a problem today then why would you use a story from almost 30 years ago that BLM had nothing to do with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Pretty sure I have seen him criticize that very idea on his blogs (it is also a variation of Villager B, which he criticizes), but if you have a good source that that is what he believes then I would love to see it.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
When was Wylted ever not a troll?
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
It was a small group of skeptics that talked via the private message system, primarily made up of skeptics that did debates on the existence of God(s). It essentially acted as a private chat group where skeptics could talk, critique arguments we wanted to use in or came up with for debates, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I am curious if measuring averages is actually a beneficial way of testing differences or not. Think of the Bell Curve when it comes to the intellect between men and women. When you talk about the average intelligence of men and women studies show that it is about equal, but when break it down you see that it is not identical. There are more men at the extremes (really stupid and really smart) and more women at the average. This makes it so the average is the same, but when you look at all the smartest people and all the dumbest people you will find more men than women.
We can also look at agreeableness charts. While men and women are mostly the same there isn't perfect overlap, where essentially all the 100 most agreeable people are women while essentially all the 100 most disagree people are men. When you pick someone out of the entire population at random there is little difference, but the differences become more clear at extremes.
At the Olympics we saw that across many countries, thus many cultures and upbringings, that almost all the most successful runners were African. So I think it is a legitimate question to ask if there are such differences where the averages are identical or near identical but that at the extremes you can find differences by race. Most people try to focus on the averages, but I don't think that is necessarily the best way to think of things (as policies tend to be made with the extremes in mind).
Created:
I think the Taliban would have taken over no matter what, but Biden and his administration pulled out in, essentially, the worst way possible.
What should have happened is for a formal negotiation to happen with the Taliban (something Trump was working on) so that when, not if, the Taliban took over Afghanistan that it would be a larger international issue, as it shows that they have no intention of honoring negotiations with others (and would get some countries to take a more antagonistic stance that would otherwise have been neutral).
There are also ways in which they could have pulled out where they didn't have to leave behind so much equipment for the Taliban to get ahold of. So many things went wrong here, and it just shows the US as being weak right now. This only increases my worry with China, who paid so much attention to what is going on that they were one of the first nations to acknowledge the Taliban controlled Afghanistan. With the US looking weak, what will happen with Taiwan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The views are clearly caricatures and therefore strawman.
Really? You are aware that these are legitimate views monotheists have taken within philosophy, right? It seems to me like you have no actual understanding of philosophy beyond apologetics with how you are struggling here.
Therefore I should be an atheist or a pantheist.
Either you are strawmanning the argument or you are just not grasping it. Do you not understand what prior probabilities are? Because it seems that is the case with what you are saying.
I never said I reject the Null Hypothesis. I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.
Are you not aware that the Null Hypothesis when applied to the god claim has atheism as default? Do you not know what the Null Hypothesis is or are you ignorant on what a default position is?
You are not making sense.
I honestly don't know how much simpler I can make it without having you actually take a Philosophy 101 course at this point.
The Bible is an axiom and the Havamai is not. Perhaps you need to learn about axioms.
I know what axioms are and it seems like you are misusing the term. If you have 'the Bible as an axiom' (whatever you are supposed to mean by that) then you may as well quit this site as debate becomes impossible with you. As such you must be using the term in an entirely different way than it is used in philosophy.
Where does the Havamal declare that it is the Words of Odin within the texts.
You know how when you pick up a book it has a title, right? If the title says that the book is the "Words of Odin" then why would it be necessary to make it clear within the text once more that it is, indeed, the words of Odin.
he would not make it difficult for people to figure this out. It would not be secret.
You are presupposing the nature that god(s) must have.
Your book does not declare that God wrote it.
My book? I use many books and the one I have mentioned in this thread is explicitly the Words of Odin yet you keep pretending that it isn't. The fact that I outlined this clearly in my last comment and you basically decided to ignore what I said makes me convinced you are not an honest actor and thus I am only responding at this point as a courtesy.
reject it as God's word and as an axiom.
Again, you clearly have no idea what an axiom is in philosophy.
Atheism is more relative - post modern. The Western Nations have traditionally been more modernistic in their position. Trappings of the Judea Christian heritage. Yet Atheism as it becomes more dominant in society is heading philosophy and everything else towards non-absolutes. We live in a non-binary age now. Morality is as Morality does. Everyone is their own god. Polytheism. Not every god has to be superhuman. Most are just ordinary people who believe they have the right to do whatever they want and to believe whatever they want. This is the essence of deity.
It is due to this type of stuff that I am convinced that you haven't read anything in philosophy except apologetics. Combine that with your blatant dishonesty when it comes to the Havamal, even after I spelled it out, and it is clear you are not an honest actor. I made this reply as a last courtesy, but if you aren't actually going to be an honest actor then don't bother replying at this point. I get better engagement on these topics on websites that aren't debate focused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
For instance, I am a monotheist. Where do I fit in?
From what I can tell you hold a mix of the various monotheistic views presented, so I don't see how you are struggling here. As each of the three require fallacious reasoning to sustain themselves over the polytheistic interpretation it follows that mixing and matching does the same.
Perhaps you need to explain the difference between religious experience and experience within a religious context.
For the purpose of Greer's argument, a religious experience is an experience one has of a god. It is vaguely defined on purpose as there are a wide range of ways one can hold the experience.
I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.
You reject the Null Hypothesis? Why?
special pleading is not a reason to reject its truth
Again, it is about prior probabilities, not final ones. If one view requires a fallacy to support and the other doesn't then the one that doesn't is initially favored. Arguments can be provided to shift probabilities, but that goes beyond the purpose of the argument.
The Bible is an axiom. The Havamai is not.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
In all of the religious transcripts in the world for major religions current and past, there are VERY VERY few scriptures that are self validating. For example - the Quran is not a self-validating scripture. Nowhere in the Muslim scriptures does the book ever declare it is the Word of GodYour Havamai does not fall into the category therefore it would be removed from the list.
Self validating means that the book declares it is the "Word of God"? Well, then I don't know why you are including the Havamal as one that isn't self-validating when it is explicitly the Words of Odin. Havamal means "Words of Havi", Havi means High One, and the High One is explicitly Odin. As such the name of the text is "Words of Odin". Also, Havamal, not Havamai.
I honestly have no idea how you come to the conclusion that it doesn't declare it is the word of a god when that is literally the name of the text itself.
I also think this standard you are giving is absurd. Why must a book declare it was written by god(s) to be valid? Because you find it "reasonable" that a god would do so? Who says that a holy book necessarily has to be written by god?
Have you ever come across the phrase "the one and the many"? Inclusiveness is a product of the One. It is therefore logically and consistently polytheistic. Hence, inclusiveness tends to be seen in cultures such as eastern nations - India, China, etc and interestingly in the Atheistic ones. Atheism is essentially a polytheistic religion. The notion of NO GOD turns into everyone is a god. We are all masters of our destinies. No one - can tell us what to do. We are all little gods.
This sounds, to me, like hogwash coming from a point of view that has no understanding on the philosophy of religion.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
there is not a single policy that makes your life worse because of your race
I would say that how the laws are around Native Reservations and policies which basically make them the one place that is controlled top-down in the country have lead to the higher poverty and lower average education levels we observe within these areas, and such policies/laws exist in large part due to race.
There are restrictions that limit what people can do within reservations that don't exist outside of it, in places with voter ID sometimes reservation residents need to go through extra steps to get an ID with an 'accurate current residence address' (one of the main arguments against voter ID in some states), etc.
These are, for the most part, top-down policies/laws, which differentiates reservations from the rest of the country where things are bottom-up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Which religion or denomination would you put this person at? Definitely does not fall under any christian denomination that I am aware of.
The various villagers represent different positions one can take on the religious experience of others.
Villager A takes the position that all religious experience of others is false (made up, hallucinations, etc.)
Villager B takes the position that they had an experience but that it isn't of Cat (god).
Villager C takes the position they they had an experience of Cat, and the differences is how they view Cat can be explained.
Villager D takes the position that there are no Cats.
Villager E takes the position that there are many Cats.
They aren't supposed to represent religions or denominations, they represent the positions one can take in regards to religious experience.
I would never use it as a basis or proving God exists
This isn't really relevant for the argument though. It does not matter if one person's religious experience cannot be used as evidence to another person, all that matters is if someone acknowledges that religious experience happens (and is real).
But really they only confirm that religious experience is not the determiner of God existence.
The argument isn't supposed to be a determiner, it sets a 'prior probability'. It is that polytheism is apriori more likely than monotheism. It is similar to the atheist's use of the Null Hypothesis. Until arguments for theism are given one should maintain atheism via Null Hypothesis, until arguments that there can only be one god are given one should maintain polytheism via Greer's argument.
I think you are mixing up religious experience with both reason and special revelation.
I do not see how, the section you quote is the section on people trying to justify their religious experience over others by using various arguments. Without reason it is special pleading to take their views, and most arguments that one can give can be argued to require special pleading as similar (or identical) arguments can exist for other religions.
Also, how is appealing to special revelation not require special pleading here? You can say that there is special revelation behind the Bible, what prevents me of saying the same about the Havamal?
Inclusivism is a product of polytheism anyway. It is a polytheistic notion - not mono-theism. Not sure of your point.
How is it polytheistic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
why can't all these other Gods 'still be the 'One God
It isn't that it cannot be the case but that it requires one to invoke special pleading that they have the proper interpretation or for one to have an unfounded assumption that these various experiences are of one god. It also requires one to assume that the polytheists that have religious experiences of multiple gods are so foolish to not be able to tell that it is the same entity. While this could be justifiable if given further evidence, Greer's argument still stands (as it only really focuses on the 'prior probabilities' rather than final ones).
Romans didn't seem bothered by other societies Gods having different names, often enough I hear, they just claimed they were actually their Gods, just with different names.
If a god was similar enough they did try to synchronize, yes, but if the god was different enough they viewed it as having discovered a new god. Of course I reject how often they would use their synchronism, but as we know from mythology that some gods went by multiple names it wouldn't be surprising if two people worshipped the same god under different names, I just think you would need to provide good reason to think this is the case to justify the synchronization, and this is something the Romans rarely did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
If one is willing to accept argument from religious experience as valid evidence, then I would say it does favor the existence of multiple gods over the existence of one god.
More than that, monotheistic religions (as opposed to philosophies, like deism) all must accept religious experience as part of how the religion originated, even if they don't think religious experiences today happen. As such it still opens up polytheism is apriori more likely.
Created:
Posted in:
In case anyone is wondering, this argument's purpose is to show that religious experience makes polytheism apriori more likely than monotheism. So if one wishes to argue for monotheism they need to use arguments that exclude multiple gods, as if one uses general theistic arguments it will otherwise lead to polytheism.
Created:
Posted in:
Interesting to see how much I have swung from libertarian left to more centrist. I do not think the liberty-authority one is quite accurate though (I think I am more aligned to liberty than it shows), but am not surprised that I am not as extreme as I once was on it.
Created:
Posted in:
Intro
Many times theists will bring up religious experience when discussing theism, whether their own or testimony they have heard from others. It is most commonly brought up either for one to validate their own beliefs or when a theist wishes to attempt to use the Argument from Religious Experience in atheism vs theism debate, but this is not the only time it is relevant. Regardless of whether or not the Argument from Religious Experience is good or not I would say that religious experience actually offers a problem to the monotheist. In this thesis I will be primarily using Greer’s argument about religious experience to defend the polytheistic position. As this argument is primarily meant for use against monotheists I think that it would be best to disregard the atheistic position on religious experience and focus on the monotheism vs polytheism aspect of the debate.
Greer’s Argument from the Diversity of Religious Experience
John Michael Greer in his book A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism makes a clear case that within the context of theism, the diversity of religious experience people have better supports polytheism than monotheism. The reason for this is that the monotheist tends to require the use of special pleading in order to justify a monotheistic interpretation of diverse religious experience.
To understand the various monotheistic interpretations Greer used the following analogy (summarized).
A researcher visits a village with five houses to inquire the residents on their beliefs in feline(s). The researcher knocks on the first villager’s door (Villager A) and asks them about their views.
Villager A tells the researcher that of course they believe in the existence of the Cat. The Cat is a tabby and has blue eyes. I leave kibble out for the Cat and the Cat eats it, proving that the Cat is real. I even once experienced the Cat and it looked at me with its blue eyes and proceeded to eat the kibble. Some of the other villagers believe in different cats but they are wrong, the cats they believe in do not exist. They leave out other foods which are probably eaten by hobos.
The researcher then proceeds to go to the next house and asks Villager B about their beliefs. They proceed to tell the researcher that they believe in the existence of the Cat as well. The Cat has short, black hair and green eyes. They put a bowl of milk out for the Cat every day and it is eaten by the Cat. They also had a personal experience of the Cat, having even turned their life around and become sober after their experience. They also say that other villagers have different beliefs about the Cat but they are mistaken, they actually are simply experiencing and feeding rats that some mistake as being Cat. One day Cat will purge the village of these rats and we will see who gets scratched and/or bitten!
The researcher proceeds to the next house and asks Villager C about their beliefs. Villager C also professes belief in the Cat, who is a marmalade tom with orange eyes. Villager C, however, is much more tolerant of the other villager’s views on Cat. After all, they got some info correct, they also think that the Cat has 4 legs, tail, pointed ears, and whiskers. However, Villager C says that the reason they got some information wrong about Cat is because they likely saw the Cat in bad light condition or when the Cat had rolled around in dirt. They also had seen Cat, having seen it on the top of the fence dividing her property with her neighbor’s, thus they know that the Cat isn’t limited to just their property. They put out canned food for the Cat, believing that this is the proper way to feed it, but says it likely is eating the food left out by others as well, just that canned food is more proper.
The researcher proceeds to the next house to ask Villager D. Villager D scoffs when asked, saying that belief in the existence of Cat is nonsensical. They had never experienced Cat and believes that other villagers hadn’t either. What they experienced were hallucinations or misperceptions of non-feline phenomena, oftentimes due to an intense will to believe. They say that if you wish to see Cat badly enough that you will be convinced anything could be Cat. The disappearance of the various foods? Could be hobos or any number of explanations that don’t require the existence of Cat. Villager D also points at the contradictions of Cat. One cat cannot be a tabby, a short black haired, and a marmalade tom at the same time.
The researcher then proceeds to the final house to ask Villager E about their beliefs. Villager E laughs and informs the researcher that there have been three different cats in the village for years, one a tabby, one with short black hair, and one a marmalade tom. Each has its own territory they mostly respect and knows where and when to get the food they each prefer. All of them occasionally go to Villager E’s house as well as they have kibble, milk, and canned food for them. She laughs and says it is funny as she had recently spotted a blue burmese female recently and has had a litter of kittens. How the other villagers react when they see these she cannot imagine.
Each of these five villagers represents a different view one can take. Villagers A, B, and C are ‘mono-felists’. They believe in one Cat but have different views about other people’s experiences. Villager A thinks that none of the cats other people believe in exist at all (existence-exclusive). Villager B thinks that the other cats people believe in are real, just not cats (value-exclusive). Villager C thinks that there is one cat with many faces (inclusive). Villager D is an afelist, they don’t think cats exist at all. Villager E is a polyfelist and believes there are many cats.
Explanation of the Analogy and Monotheist Positions
From the analogy it should be easy to see that the monotheists(monofelists) require special pleading in order to justify the experience of others within their framework, but we can go into more detail here.
Let’s take two people, Jack and Jill. Jack believes in Odin while Jill believes in Yahweh.
If Jill is an existence-exclusive monotheist they hold the view that Odin does not exist and Yahweh does. How do they justify this view? Jill might appeal to the Bible as a sacred text, but Jack can respond that he has the Havamal, the Words of Odin. Jill might appeal to prayers, revelations, and religious experiences she or other believers in Yahweh have… but Jack could do the same with those that believe in Odin. Jill could claim to have experienced miracles, but so could Jack. Jill might appeal to prophets or heroes/martyrs of Christianity, but then Jack could once more do the same. The evidence that Jill can provide as to why Yahweh exists and not Odin also exists for other religions, thus special pleading is ultimately required to justify accepting Jill’s view over Jack’s.
This problem is not solved by Jill taking the view of the value-exclusive monotheist either. How can Jill give evidence that Yahweh is the only God and that Odin is something else? Through special pleading, as, just like above, the reasons Jill can give can be matched with reasons Jack can give.
It also persists if Jill takes the inclusive view. How can Jill justify that Yahweh is the face behind the mask while Odin is a mask? Once more this cannot happen.
One attempt to salvage the monotheistic god would be to say that all experiences are not the face behind the mask but a mask, but this runs into a different problem, how do you justify the experiences of the polytheist? Is Jack so stupid that he cannot tell that Odin, Loki, Freya, etc. are all the same one god? Take an analogy, you sit in your office with the door closed and periodically you hear someone walk by your office with different music playing. Could it be one person? Sure, but why think it is? Especially if what you hear can range from genre to genre, different levels of bass and treble, different volumes, etc.? While it is possible it is one person walking by there is no good reason to think this is the case. So why should one accept the ‘one god many faces’ approach to monotheism? They shouldn’t.
Conclusion
I believe that the thesis has made it clear, religious diversity favors the polytheistic interpretation over the monotheistic one. The monotheistic interpretation requires special pleading and/or unfounded assumptions in order to justify the diversity of religious experience that occurs across the world and throughout time. As such, if religious experience is to be seen as valid then, until evidence/arguments are provided for monotheism, polytheism is more likely to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Would you give any rights to them before 6 weeks? If not, then there is a scenario in which I brought up in a different thread that I would like your view on.
"So if we justify killing an unborn in the first trimester, can we take a stance against drugging one? Because it is the development in the first trimester that has the greatest impact on the viability of the unborn.If we give no rights to the unborn in the 1st trimester in order to allow abortion, then does that mean that there is no moral issue with a woman purposefully taking hard drugs (or even starting to, so addiction cannot be used as an argument) in the first trimester as it only harms a 'potential human'? If they stop once it becomes an 'actual human' then it could be argued that the state they are in at that point is their natural state and thus any medical defects or abnormalities are just natural to said child and if they die (even after birth) that no one can be held even morally responsible?"
If you do give some level of rights before 6 weeks, then why not right to life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This brings us back to the core question of whether you view an early stage fetus as a human being.
Out of curiosity, what reasons are there that make you think it isn't a human being during the early stages?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Anyone that takes a look at this thread will find that I have had respectful dialogues with those who advocate pro-choice policies, even when there have been challenges to my view. You need to ask yourself why I do not show the same respect to you, and the answer is obvious. I have no reason to show respect to those that strawman what I say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Your opinion is very wrong.
Okay, how? Or did you think actually addressing the issue is beneath you?
Created: