tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post8946335206220068043..comments2024-01-28T06:24:50.005+00:00Comments on No Double Standards: Scott Pruett's 10 Questions for Atheists: Part 3Martin Freedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-28395767989345831042009-04-29T17:30:00.000+01:002009-04-29T17:30:00.000+01:00Hi Adam
"This question strikes at the heart of th...Hi Adam<br /><br /><I>"This question strikes at the heart of the theist / atheist debate. Realising that there is no monotheistic god validating our existence, does pose the nagging question what is the meaning of life?"</I>In my case I never had a mono or otherwise theistic god t validate my existence, This was, and is, a quite alien concept to me. I have never needed it and it does appear as I describe in my answer - the negation of meaning and purpose.<br /><br />Still I recognise that others do find meaning this way and that is fine. I also disagree that my meaning is determined by the purpose of reproduction. Still I recogniser that you can find that valid.<br /><br />So I have my answer, you have yours and a theists has hers and that is the end of the matter. Pruett's ignorant mistake, and arrogance, was in thinking that there is only one answer and it is the implications of having that answer thrust upon the rest of us, which is what I was really addressing. That is how dare anyone else dictate to me, or to you, what the meaning of my, or your, life should be.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-22258552076660744762009-04-29T12:36:00.000+01:002009-04-29T12:36:00.000+01:00"Yet our deepest longing is for our lives to count..."Yet our deepest longing is for our lives to count for something. We intuitively know that humans have rights and dignity.Does life really have no point other than what you pretend for your own sake?" <br /><br />This question strikes at the heart of the theist / atheist debate. Realising that there is no monotheistic god validating our existence, does pose the nagging question what is the meaning of life? <br /><br />The very clear answer is that our purpose is to reproduce. While it may be difficult to accept that there is no grander purpose to the universe. It is a simple fact that inanimate objects such as rocks and planets have no purpose except what is giving to them by living things.<br /><br />Accepting our simple reproductive purpose may seem nihilistic, but it is the key to the most rewarding life. If we invest in our children and loved ones, and we do the same for others and they for us, society will benefit and we will lives that are highly fulfilled. <br /><br />Adam RiccoAdam Ricconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-54832035526717758482009-04-27T18:39:00.000+01:002009-04-27T18:39:00.000+01:00Changed to comments popup. This works much nicer f...Changed to comments popup. This works much nicer for longer comments, it is easier to cut and past and the prereview look correct.<br /><br />This seem the best compromise since IntenseDebate, Disqus do not install and JS-Kit Comments install but is brain dead and crashes.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-37593078437605875952009-04-27T17:23:00.000+01:002009-04-27T17:23:00.000+01:00I have rebuilt the comment back into blogger witho...I have rebuilt the comment back into blogger without the noise. I have not revised it,in case you read the previous version.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-48791469460439543592009-04-27T17:21:00.000+01:002009-04-27T17:21:00.000+01:00Hi Tom
First I am surprised that you endorse Pru...Hi Tom<br /> <br />First I am surprised that you endorse Pruett. I woud have expected you, if you had answered at all, to disavow him or at least claim he was a poor representative of your approach. To endorse someone who has displayed some blatant stupidiity - most infamously in his fossils/pre-biotic comment - is very surprising. I had thought better of you.<br /> <br /><B>Fine-Tuning</B>My response was a (deliberately) off the cuff view based on a background as a statistican and mathematical modeller. A quick check seems to be confirmed by others who have spent time on this and have come up with similar points only more researched and argued for. If you provide a link to John Leslie I am happy to see what he has to say.<br /> <br /><B>Transcendent Principles</B>You said: <I>"Your answer is so far from the relevant question it's unbelievable."</I>Pruett's position is entirely unconvincing and this is a topic I have had great interest in in the past. You have not presented an argument in reply. I have said my answer is in line with Lackoff's and if you wish to make an argument against that then go ahead. Emtpy comments as yours here carry no weight.<br /> <br /><B>Meaning</B>You said: <I>"This is a complete misrepresentation of Christianity. If it were an accurate representation it might count as an answer. But you complained that Pruett misrepresented the "atheist worldview," and the same complaint can and should be leveled right back at you."</I>Exactly my point. If you want to understand any atheist conception of meaning you have to suspend beleif in your God. If you do not, as Pruett failed to here, yoo end up completely misrepresenting any atheist's position on meaning.<br /><br /><B>The Mind</B>You said: <I>"As far as you know? Do you think that counds as "satisfactorily answering Pruett's questions, indeed far better than his own answers"? Do you realize the philosophical conundrum posed by the question of determinism and moral responsibility? Do you have any awareness of all concerning Dennett's conclusions regarding consciousness? Does "as far as I know" count as an answer?"</I> <br />Well since you ask this question interested me so much I did a Masters Degree in it and this was the topic of my dissertation. So, in this case, I have a far better than a well read layman's opinion on this. And since you ask, what do you know?<br /><br /><B>Christianity</B>You said: <I>"What is stupid about asking a question that doesn't follow from the previous 8? What rule of intelligence dictates that each question must "follow from" the previous ones?</I>Of course there is no rule but there was a clear intent in Pruett in forumulating these questions and the only resonable intepretation of them is that the last two provide answers to the first 8 - supposedly better than an atheist can come up with, at least Pruett erroneously repumes. But Pruett's presumption is quite wrong as I and many others have shown.<br /><br />If Pruett is to assume that religion and theism can provide an answer to these first 8 questions than others then he needs to establish that religion is the way to go and he has not done so.<br /><br />You said:<I>"You yourself asked how someone should choose one religion over another."</I>Which presumes that religion is the way to go. Have you considered which religion, if that is needed, can best provide the answer to those questions> Surely a more spartan Buddhism and other athesitic ones seem to provide far simpler and clearer answers than the Christianity with its addtional baroque assumptions which appear to overwhelm the issues deslt with in the first 8 questions? That is why it appears question 9 to be such a huge and unjustified leap.<br /><br />You said:<I>Pruett's question 9 points to his answer (and mine)."</I>Maybe you are so used to this that you cannot see this question sticks out like a sore thumb?<br /><br />You said:<I>"What on earth makes you think it stupid for him to bring up an answer to a question you consider important?"</I>Why do you think I consider it important? I do not. Since I have more than satisfactory answers to those first 8 question, certainly more than Pruett why would I need to look any further? Why do you and Pruett consider this question important?<br /><br />You said: <I>"You absolutely have not answered Pruett's questions".</I>The mere fact that I have, as anyone can read, refutes this claim.<br /><br /><B>Conclusion</B>You said:<I>"I appreciate your pointing to my blog as an example of thinking Christianity".</I>I am trying not to revise my opinion that you are a far better person, indeed one of the best on the internet, to discuss these issues with someone like Pruett. <br /><br />You said: <I>"And I would suggest that you be less quick to condemn that which you do not understand.</I>This was my point over Pruett, mkaing presumptions over topisc he did not understand. Are you attempting to include yourself in this category too? The only topic I do not understand in ths list is religion and I noted elsewhere recently that I made a genuine attempt in my youth and wasted fsr too much time on that and have no interest in going backwards.<br /><br />You said:<I>"Your lack of understanding is all too apparent here. I would encourage you to do some real study and understand what Pruett is really saying, and what Christianity really is."</I>This can only apply to question 9 and 10 I clearly have a far better understanding of Pruett's first 8 questoins than he does - as does every atheist who has replied, at least the ones I have read. In order for me to spend new time on such topics I need to see evidence and a need that this can satisfy and I have seen none. I will study any subject that I am ainterested in, have time for, there is evidence that it an lead to knwoeldge and there is a likely benefit, if only in understanding . Religion offers none of this, and ss the saying goes, been there, done that. My current interst has been ethics and a renewed interest in economics - I used be in quantative finance (I am blowing off the cobwebs on that at the moment my disucssions with you ahve been interesting but distracting from this). Both seem far more relevant to the issues of today's society than anachronistic and antiquated religion.<br /><br />Given that you seem to surprisingly agree with Pruett and are now displaying the same ignorant arrogance that he does, I suggest you study some physics, biology, psychology, mathematics and philosophy of mind. You dont have to do it to graduate or beyond level as I have done but a genuine effort would be a start. And you cannot do this by presupposing the correctness of your theistic point of view or just from apologist texts. You have to leave such beleifs at the door and see what you find.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-89048103449407577362009-04-26T20:12:00.000+01:002009-04-26T20:12:00.000+01:00Wow. You wrote, "Since I have more than satisfacto...Wow. You wrote, "<I>Since I have more than satisfactorily answered Pruett's questions, indeed far better than his own answers, and in a quite contrary way to Pruett's presumptions about what my answers would be, I have more than I need to condemn Pruett's biased, ignorant and poor reasoning.</I>"<br /><br />Allow me to point out from your first post in this series, "<I>I think it is likely there is other life on the universe but it certainly does not remotely look like it is finely tuned for life.</I>" Are you aware that it looks that way to <A HREF="http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator" REL="nofollow">informed scientists</A>? You added, <I>"It might appear to be incredibly unlikely but the same would apply to any sentient being asking this question in their universe."</I> You probably haven't read John Leslie's response to that.<br /><br />In part 2 you wrote, "<I>These might 'appear to stand outside of nature' but where is the evidence that this is actually so. Logic and mathematics are produced - whether discovered or invented - by naturally occurring entities - namely us (well maybe not Pruett :-) ) - and we are certainly part and parcel of the natural world - as far as we can tell to date.</I>"<br /><br />Your answer is so far from the relevant question it's unbelievable.<br /><br />In part 3, "<I>The longing for our lives to count for something is more easily met with such naturalistic worldviews than the type of theistic worldview that Pruett espouses. Indeed such theistic worldviews deny there is any objective meaning in anyone's lives, instead making it be dictated beyond our control or wishes by some non-existent entity whose existence can only be subjective known, making us serfs, slaves or mere cogs in the machine to serve some purpose of some imaginary being.</I>"<br /><br />This is a complete misrepresentation of Christianity. If it were an accurate representation it might count as an answer. But you complained that Pruett misrepresented the "atheist worldview," and the same complaint can and should be leveled right back at you.<br /><br />Also, "<I>Most importantly Pruett is labouring under a misc-conception that free will is required for moral responsibility. As far I know it is the opposite, that with such a conception of free will that Pruett espouses there can be no moral responsibility.</I>"<br /><br />And "<I>Why should I seek to convince you that you are not a conscious or self-aware being, as far as I know you, I and everyone is and such capacities are due to being part of the natural world.</I>"<br /><br />As far as you know? Do you think that counds as "satisfactorily answering Pruett's questions, indeed far better than his own answers"? Do you realize the philosophical conundrum posed by the question of determinism and moral responsibility? Do you have any awareness of all concerning Dennett's conclusions regarding consciousness? Does "as far as I know" count as an answer? <br /><br />On question 9, "<I>This is surely the stupidest question yet as it does not follow in any way from the previous 8 questions. If this is a theist addressing an atheist the question would surely be about the challenge of religion per se, rather than Pruett's particular version of religion.</I>"<br /><br />What is stupid about asking a question that doesn't follow from the previous 8? What rule of intelligence dictates that each question must "follow from" the previous ones? (Quick answer to that question: there is no such rule, nor do I think anybody would think of proposing one.) Further: Pruett is not arguing for religion <I>per se</I> but for Christianity. It's entirely appropriate for him to bring in evidences for it. You yourself asked how someone should choose one religion over another. Pruett's question 9 points to his answer (and mine). <I>What on earth makes you think it stupid for him to bring up an answer to a question you consider important</I>?<br /><br />You absolutely have not answered Pruett's questions. I appreciate your pointing to my blog as an example of thinking Christianity. I would point at Pruett's questions as another very good example of the same. And I would suggest that you be less quick to condemn that which you do not understand. Your lack of understanding is all too apparent here. I would encourage you to do some real study and understand what Pruett is really saying, and what Christianity really is.Tom Gilsonhttp://www.thinkingchristian.netnoreply@blogger.com