From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:39 PM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: evidence of god? for Holtz [G Riggs] "Elizabeth Hubbell" > > > What is the most persuasive way [..] > > > > Pointing out to them which of their perceptions are inaccurate > > or nonsensical. > > But you haven't answered my question. Yes I have: "pointing out" -- i.e. rational demonstration -- is (perhaps by definition) the most persuasive way to change the beliefs of rational people. > How do you propose to *persuade* enough people [..] That's a marketing question, whose answer simply does not affect the truth or falsity of the things I've been saying. > > Never before in recorded > > history has humanity been as close as it is now to a common > > understanding of the rights of all humans and the workings of > > the universe. > > Of course, we are closer to such a consensus today than ever before. Precisely. > the path is more fraught with imponderables > than we ever imagined, possible more perilous than ever as well False, and false. (Or, just vague to the point of meaninglessness.) > > > there is no dichotomy whatsoever between culture and > > > nature. > > > > Clearly false. The dichotomy lies in whether intelligence > > is involved. The fact that intelligence is natural does > > not make this distinction disappear. > > If intelligence is natural, then it's natural. It's a non sequitor to claim this tautology demonstrates the truth of the proposition "there is no dichotomy whatsoever between culture and nature". > you > are making a perfectly valid distinction between those aspects of human > existence that depend upon intelligence and those that don't. Hence your claim of "no dichotomy whatsoever" is false. > But don't turn around and > say that the distinction between manifestations of intelligence and > non-intelligence is the same distinction as the (I agree, false) one > between the counter-intuitive/unnatural versus the natural. I didn't say that. Here's an idea: when making a claim about what I say, first type a quote mark, then paste in some text that I actually wrote, then type in another quote mark. > > How can you be surprised at the popularity of theism > > when [Leucippos' innane cosmology] was the alternative? > > I'm more surprised--and disappointed--at the lack of ethical > discussion/originality in the earliest atheism than I am at unconvincing > cosmic theorizing. So you do not dispute that atheism's lack of a plausible cosmology would make it unpopular. Thank you. Thus my original point stands: It's shockingly naive to draw such dramatic conclusions from the (not-too-surprising) historical accident that the obvious theories of ethics were discovered in a milieu that was ignorant of evolution and thus devoid of robust atheism. As for any alleged defects in the ethical claims of particular atheists, it's simply fallacious to say that those defects shed light on whether atheism as a metaphysical claim is true or not. > What I do expect from the ancients of both > sides is some engagement with the moral implications of what it means > for humanity to live in a cosmos of a)pure naturalism or b)naturalism > and the metaphysical. No, naturalism *is* a metaphysical theory. You probably mean 'supernaturalism' instead of 'the metaphysical'. > Why do pioneering espousers of the former fail to > match the latter in terms of ethics engagement? Do you mean by "engagement" anything other than agreement with your personal values of altruism and reciprocity? > > The emerging global consensus for peace > > through freedom is so pervasive that you are as blind to it > > as a fish is to water. The emerging consensus is totally > > unprecedented in human history, and yet you complain that > > everyone is too lazy to bother creating such a consensus. > > [..] the very term "interdependence" has > become such a dirty word in the public square today (IMO) that I don't > see that the momentum has come to anything now but a screeching halt. Please help me understand how this is anything but unsubstantive hyperbole motivated by some unrelated political agenda of yours. > > In this century, the right thoughts are finally > > winning, in a historically unprecedented way, > > IMO, they were winning in the past century, but there is nothing being > further developed right now. We're stagnating. IMO: false, and false. > > > > Note, however, that as a hardcore altruist you would probably > > > > deny that it is even possible for someone to invent an > > > > ethical principle better than altruism. This shows that you > > > > don't even follow your own "sociological" methodology, but > > > > instead are tacitly following my recommendation of a priori > > > > non-empirical ethical philosophizing. > > > You did not answer my question: is it possible for someone to invent > > an ethical principle better than altruism/reciprocity/cooperation? > > My hunch is, probably not. Then why do all the sociological research for understanding how good ethics are created, when you already claim to know what the best ethics are? As I said before: You seem to think the most important sociology-of-ethics issue is to figure out how people invent novel yet first-rate ethical principles. I would say that the most important sociology-of-ethics issue is to figure out how to get people to follow the ethical principles that already have been invented. > > So anyone who threatens the peace automatically gets his way? > > No, anyone who threatens the peace gets the smarter ones thinking and > not just doing. Strawman: I never said anyone should "just do" instead of think. > the Marshall Plan of the 1940s is a good > example of what the smarter ones can do once an enemy is defeated. > [..] I don't see any concerted Marshall-type > ideas coming out of the public square today There is a big difference between rebuilding an industrialized society that's been bombed to the brink of mass starvation, and giving charity to societies for the simple reason that they are poorer than we. > The Marshall Plan cut off the nourishment for further threats > to develop for most of Europe. The Sep 11 hijackers grew up in a country (Saudi Arabia) that had enough inflow of Western money to give it one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world. Thus dousing foreigners with our money will not necessarily eliminate threats from abroad. > > Any Third-World failures of Western-style markets are > > not due to a "lack of social cohesion", but rather to > > governments being too corrupt to prevent fraud and > > protect property rights. > > And why does the West continue being friendly (occasionally) with just > such governments? Usually because the alternative is perceived to be worse. Sometimes that perception is wrong. But rarely does that perception stop the West from applying some degree of pressure for reform. > > when externalities like pollution > > are properly internalized, the market will tell us whether > > it is more efficient to, say, burn some more fossil fuels > > vs. build expensive solar cells. For example, if fossil fuels > > are still cheaper than solar cells even after pollution > > externalities are internalized (e.g. through a tax whose > > proceeds are applied to abating pollution) > > A tax will never result in automatic actions that *entirely* > overcome a problem. When efforts to "entirely overcome a problem" start to cost more than the problem itself is costing, then "entirely overcom[ing]" the problem is a dumb thing to do. Market-based solutions (like taxes and transferrable pollution licenses) are better at finding this balance than any bureaucracy you would propose. > why is the development of and research in cleaner energy > sources so profoundly distasteful to you? I already told you that I favor 1) internalizing things like pollution that currently are negative externalities in free market transactions, and 2) publicly funding the production of positive externalities through scientific research. Research should be publicly funded because markets cannot capture positive externalities for the private firms that create them. Product development should NOT be publicly funded, because a) markets CAN capture the profits for the product producers, and b) markets are the best mechanism for deciding what products to produce. > Do you simply have a sure "faith" in your heart that cleaner > energy sources are "sinful" [..] Ceteris paribus I of course *prefer* cleaner energy, but it is typical that you as a left-liberal would project onto me an imagined hatred of cleaner energy in order to shore up your apparently shaky belief in the moral rectitude of your position in this debate. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net