The Warfare Is Mental

I’m Burning Out! And Thoughts On Haiti

February 5, 2010

I never thought it would happen, but I'm afraid I have to admit it's true: regarding blogging, my general feelings so far in 2010 can be summarized in the statement, "for the birds." Nothing really interests me anymore, at least not on the atheist blogs I've grown accustomed to reading. However, I will say that jim's series Proof of God's Existence is probably the best thing going in the aetheosphere right now, and I do hope he keeps at it.

Now, I am definitely not saying I've lost interest in writing or philological work, because that's not true at all. Actually, I'm now more enthused in my work than ever. Lately I've been spending quite a bit of time fine-tuning the new homepage, last updated February 2nd 2010 and currently presenting just short of 100 arguments pertinent to (a)theist discussion. I'm doing work, it's just not immediately visible. So that explains the reluctance to write new posts every day. I've burned out on the aetheosphere, and decided to put my work where I imagine it might count for something more: the book.

That being said, by no means am I through with the blogosphere. In fact, just this morning I read a post over at MS Quixote's that got the gears turning: A Problem of Evil…

Carol Should Have Partied! Proof Of God’s Existence, 6

January 25, 2010

This is my sixth response to jim's series, Proof of God's Existence.

jim spent the first few paragraphs of The Party arguing that science arose from our need to perceive the world as it really is. For example,

All of us want to be objective. That is, we all want to see the world for what it truly is. … This is why we have science. Science is that small part of us that wants to get a handle on how the world REALLY operates. To garner a bird’s eye viewpoint unclouded by ignorance, or purely emotional concerns, or simply by the unwieldiness of way too much information. Science is a process by which we seek to see more clearly and completely.

I would agree with jim there, and would add that granted the methodologies are different, I believe that's why we have philosophy and religion, too. jim went on to create what I saw as a meaningful distinction between the commonplace "little science" normal people use every day, and the not-so-commonplace "Big Science" that professional scientists engage in under controlled circumstances. I took jim's "little science" to be categorically analogous to the "common sense inquiry" he alluded to in the Introduction, and all of this built to the following question:

Conservatively Stated Belief: Proof Of God’s Existence, 5

January 23, 2010

I’ve been slowly digesting jim’s series Proof Of God’s Existence for the past month or so. I hope he keeps it going.

We ended 4 with a provisional definition of justified belief as, “conservatively-stated beliefs or conclusions that correspond to face value observation and are not sufficiently challenged by anomalous data.” We also discussed an hypothetical auto accident and noted that since drivers don’t normally crash into each other intentionally, most people refer generically to most traffic collisions as automobile accidents.

If we see a Mazda t-bone a parts truck at noon on some weekday, our justified belief conservatively stated is that we saw a collision between a Mazda and a parts truck at noon on some weekday. That’s it. We could responsibly paraphrase that by saying we saw some sedan slam into a truck, or that a work-truck got hit by some car, but any description that adds unconfirmed assumptions or omits confirmed facts exhibits some degree of inaccuracy. In the everyday world where pragmatism overrides commitment to technical accuracy, I wouldn’t take issue, but in philosophy and logic such laxity can be lethal.

Some might be tempted to say that since most traffic collisions are in fact accidents that we’re justified to begin with that assumption. While there is certainly enough of an argument there that I wouldn’t call that assumption irrational, at the same time I would not consider the assumption conservatively-stated. Although most likely true (because most traffic collisions are in fact accidents), that we saw an accident between a Mazda and a parts truck is not conservatively stated. It adds the unconfirmed assumption that the collision was accidental. In everyday or pragmatic usage reasonable speakers understand what is meant, but imagine the catastrophe oversight like that might cause in some nuanced philosophical discourse. We should be responsible interlocutors and say no more or no less than statements or data permit. Anything less is a disservice to clarity.

That being said, let’s get back to The Boxes.

When Is Belief Justified, Redux? Proof Of God’s Existence, 4

January 21, 2010

We left off promising a more in-depth discussion of jim's post. I understand that jim offers his series Proof Of God's Existence as a thought experiment, and that he's simply asking what our initial judgments would be, perhaps to help define the parameters of this "common sense inquiry" he alluded to in the introduction. Personally, I'm all for it, and as a writer I've always enjoyed reading jim, even his vitriolic tirades against me which were often colorful and creative (I even recall some limericks).

After setting up an odd series of events between Mary the neighborhood realtor and Carol the neighborhood skeptic, jim closes with the following set of questions:

Are Carol's [suspicion and uneasiness] justified at this point, slight though they be, or can they be summarily dismissed? Is this early foreboding of suspicion rational? Irrational? Pre-rational?

My short answer was that Carol's initial and ongoing uneasiness were justified, but any ongoing suspicion less so. Likewise, I answered that Carol's initial and ongoing uneasiness would also seem rational, but again, any ongoing suspicion less so. Tonight I'd like to address those questions in more detail, in hopes of churning out at least a provisional definition of justified belief.

Why I Do What I Do

December 21, 2009

Every now and again it's helpful to ask oneself why one does the things they do. Recently, I found myself asking myself why I actually blog, and more particularly, why I comment on other blogs. I encourage you to skip this post, actually. It's not about epistemology or consciousness or potency or any of the more stimulating things we've been talking about these past weeks. I just needed to think some stuff out, and figured, why not do it in public? [weird little interview with myself follows]

A Pact Of Ignorance

December 20, 2009

My ears had been burning: I just knew on faith that ol' jim had somethin' nasty brewin' over there! He'd been way too quiet lately. He's written a letter to Team Scarlet A, an open invitation to a pact of ignorance amongst the likeminded:

What I’d like to suggest is a pact amongst the likeminded – the ‘haters’ as cl surely would dub us – to simply ignore the guy. I know, I know! LOL! Easy to say, yes? But it’s become absolutely crystal clear to me that cl does not have the ability to play well with others. At least, not with those who seriously challenge him.
–jim, reason vs. apologetics

Well, where to start? First, I like the use of the word "likeminded" and think it's an especially useful adjective for describing Team Scarlet A. Second, jim saying that I lack the ability to play well would be hilarious were it not for statements like these from him:

You're nothing but a big baby, cl. Put up or shut up, ya wuss… Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.
–jim, reason vs. apologetics

This Is Getting Old: Meta-Analysis At SI’s, I

December 15, 2009

Motivated by the pursuit of clarity, I've decided to undertake a more thorough meta-analysis of various threads I've been on at SI's. By meta-analysis I mean that I'm going through the posts and threads to see if any sort of patterns emerge, because numbers don't lie.

The first post I looked at was This is Getting Old [thread: 50 comments as of 12-15-2009].

A Response To bryce

December 13, 2009

So, the usual haters are at it again, but in between the name-calling and flanking I noticed a rather composed comment from somebody by the name of bryce. I liked the response his comment provoked, but it got a bit long, so I figured I'd post it here. Who knows? Maybe bryce will come by, maybe we'll have a fruitful discussion, or maybe he'll even become a regular commenter? Weirder things have happened. Here's bryce's comment in its entirety:

Response To DD’s “What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means” Pt. IV

December 12, 2009

Here, here, and here, I've responded to DD's post, What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means (WBIRM). DD has responded to those responses, and I think now would be a good time to revisit DD's original post that prompted my responses in the first place. There's quite a lot going on in DD's original post, so let's try to strain the pertinent arguments from his personal opinions. DD makes 4 claims in WBIRM that I feel the need to respond to:

Response To The Exterminator

December 10, 2009

Two times lately, Exterminator asked me to define terms I'd used in various statements I'd made around the internet. The first time was at Chaplain's, and when I asked if he was serious, Ex didn't reply. The second time was at SI's, and I decided to give him a formal response here, just for the sake of establishing a record. As for how he and I got to this point, well… SI wrote a post called I Wish I'd Written That in which he re-posted a few questions from Greta Christina's essay, Hey Religious Believers, Where's Your Evidence?

In accordance with my reaction to Greta's original post, in SI's thread, I argued that the reproduced questions were fallacious, which provoked criticism from some of his readers. Here's that conversation summarized:

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →