Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
You know nothing about my "faith".
My "fool or intellectual" assessment was not directed at you but it was quite sincere. Only the thoughtless or arrogant or insecure could be atheistic. That God exists is self-evident. There is legitimate argument as to "His" nature but not "His" existence. Who "wrote" the "laws of physics"? Surely you don't maintain that it "just happened". Or do you?
Why? It really ought to be up to Vox Dei to justify his statement that Nietzsche was an atheist, since he made the original claim. Nevertheless, I could simply point out that denying the Christian conception of God does not an atheist make.
excerpt:
In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about one-tenth of one percent. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.
I don't make a habit of yielding to profoundly stupid questions. I could articulate the golden rule, state it in one of its common quaint forms, and we would be no closer or further to anything. "Articulating it" answers nothing. It brings your credibility into serious question that you would even make such a demand when I have already stated multiple acceptable standards. You also have shown clear evidence that you do not understand IPD, and therefore are disqualified from having a useful opinion on this matter.
The Golden Rule is simple, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", an elegant pedestrian summary of useful theorems in game theory. Like Occam's Razor, the expressions of the concept existed long before they were proven mathematically optimal.
I don't object to writing ten or twenty words on a subject, but I strenuously object to wasting my time. I would rather burn my time doing nothing than chasing some fool's errand. You have provided nothing to suggest anything other than that you are in fact on a fool's errand, something I want no part of. For your part, you have not demonstrated that you have useful grasp of the relevant mathematics, and have given evidence to the contrary. I have yielded useful and verifiable information regarding the relationship between game theory and the Golden Rule, much in the same way that Kolmogorov information theory is related to Occam's Razor, information that anyone knowledgeable in the art would be familiar with. What are you bringing to the table?
Why don't you articulate the Golden Rule. Quite frankly, I think you have demonstrated that you understand it in only the most shallow sense, but I'll withhold judgment until you "articulate".
But it is one facet of it. One can trivially evaluate it in a standard game theoretic framework within the context of the Golden Rule.
Biting the teat that feeds you is "defection" (game theoretic term). Therefore, it violates the Golden Rule by definition in the general case. Even without the game theoretic view, you have to try really hard to not see that as a violation of the Golden Rule.
I question your question. Even Christians believe in punishment, which is all that is required in the case of defection.
A pedestrian and more fully expressed version of the Golden Rule from mathematics would be like the following: Do unto others as you have them do unto you. But if they do harm, punish in like kind.
These are really key theorems in game theory, that the maximally optimal behavior is to "cooperate" with others whenever possible, but if others "defect" or harm you, optimality is obtained by retaliating in like kind.
Since you are interested in this kind of thing, I will point out that these assumes rough parity in the nature of the agents involved. If one posits strong disparities in the fundamental capabilities (not natures) of the agents (e.g. man versus animals), then the optimality of interaction looks quite a bit different. Generally speaking, humans tend towards optimal behaviors on average. The reason is simple economics; optimal behavior is powerful multiplier of utility. Grossly sub-optimal behaviors are terribly expensive and not sustainable, particularly in the face of competition from groups that behave in more optimal ways.
(One can make some get into some really interest theological discussions from game theory due to some of the interesting consequences of asymmetric agents e.g. God versus man. Frankly though, I don't think this forum is up for it; people have a hard time dealing with asymmetric game theory.)
You don't need to know high-level physics to understand the scientific method. If people needed to know high-level physics to understand science, we would have never learned even low-level physics.
There is a difference between faith in something without evidence (FAITH) and an understanding of the scientific reasoning (REASON). This is not to knock faith, but it is very different in nature from reason. Faith deals with "revealed truths," whereas reason deals in things we can see for ourselves.
We can devise experiments to learn about the properties of matter.
We cannot devise experiments to learn whether or not God really thinks homosexuality is a sin. We just have to go with what we think the revealed truth is (and different people believe differently on this subject, even if they accept the same version of the Bible (the same revealed truths)).
Scientists might disagree on certain things, but eventually they come to agreement. The same is NOT true about religion, because it deals in revealed truths.
Revelation and reason are fundamentally different. Understanding the difference between the two is one of the key tenets of Western philosophy.
Atheists are irrational because we can't handle the terrible consequences of non-belief? Not only can I "handle" the atheist lifestyle, I'm LIVING it.
As far as rationality is concerned, I'm Mensa-quality, just like Vox.
Belief that atheism leads inevitably to mass murder is ridiculous bigotry. Atheists don't have any worse (or better) record than any religious group that has been in power of a major nation.
Atheists at the individual level have not proved to be any worse citizens than anyone else in this country. To make blanket denigrations that we are "immoral" without evidence is prejudice and bigotry. It would be like accusing all Christians of being irrational because they can't handle the illogic of the existence of a benevolent "God," which drives them inevitably to religious persecution of non-Christians and other so-called deviants. That would be a bigoted, false thing to say.
To clarify something which was badly written, the narrow subset of game theory normally applied to human interaction assumes rough parity of intelligence in the general abstract sense. You can have any odd mixture of good people and bad people, but the game theory will always work out the same if all the parties involved have roughly equivalent intelligence. Having lots of "bad" people or lots of "good" people in a population does not change the outcomes of the basic theory, which is also why cultural indoctrination and behaviors tend to have only a mild impact on game theoretic outcomes around the world at large. The aggregate nature of the behaviors of a population don't change the basic game theory that one applies to determine the optimality and outcomes of said behaviors.
Where things become very interesting is when you leave the narrow case of parity with respect to intelligence of the agents in a system. Our justice system is premised on this parity, but one can show that if there is sufficient disparity (e.g. if you have a brilliant criminal and stupid police/prosecutors or vice versa) then the likely game theoretic outcome will NOT be "justice" in the sense you would expect if there was parity. Parity of intelligence is a useful fiction, but sometimes you can see where it strains the system as expectations meet theoretical reality. Game theory as applied to strong asymmetries of intelligence represents a real conundrum, particularly as it applies to social and cultural institutions.
My study of asymmetric systems has given me a much better idea of just how fragile and unreconcilable many of our institutions are in a larger sense, and changed my views on some issues. It would take a relatively small asymmetry to affect radical changes in the basic nature of the systems, and with the progress of technology, such asymmetries are feasible within our lifetimes. Our social and cultural institutions as we know them literally cannot exist in an environment where such asymmetries exist; they are not stable constructs outside narrow game theoretic premises that just happen to be the rule for now as practical matter.
That's not true.
And scientists cannot even decide if viruses are truly "alive" because they straddle the boundary between what is "living" and what is not.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.Ping
Warning: don't drink and read, except you want to get rid of your old keyboard anyway ;)
Please don't put agnostics in the same category as atheists. They are distinctly different. If you're an atheist- that's what you are. Not an atheist/agnostic.
I am an agnostic. I have no patience for atheists and do not like it when they hijack my "category".
"Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not."
Now you ask:
What is your foundation for this “truth”? Does this ‘truth’ fluctuate?
I assume, therefore, that you are entirely satisfied on the issue of "justice." We've finished that one. Now you ask about truth. Truth is a verifiable statement that accurately corresponds to reality. I don't see how that can fluctuate, unless reality fluctuates. I can say that it's 80 degrees outside, and that may be true. Tomorrow, it might be something else. But it was true when spoken. This is "Run Spot, run" stuff. Where are you going with these questions? It would be best if you stopped the Perry Mason stuff and just made your statements.
Which is likely the percentage of the population in general without religious training.
In the East, over 64 percent of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50 percent.
It sounds bogus. 65 percent of U.S. prison population is black.
Relatively few blacks are Catholics.
Good. Progress.
Yet it took you three posts and hundreds of words to answer my simple question, when it would have to both our benefits to deal with it simply and directly in the first post. How does this square with the tenets unveiled in the Iterated Prisioner's Dilemma concerning the benefits of mutual cooperation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.