Factoring Intelligence Into Assessments Of Morality

November 18, 2008

I think there's a reason philosophy has remained unable to resolve certain problems, and by no means do I claim to have the definitive answers regarding the complicated question of morality. With that being said, I would like to comment on the role our access to knowledge plays in the formation of accurate moral judgments. In order to have this discussion, we need to assume at least the premise that a distinction exists between "good" and "evil" acts, and we'll touch upon our old pal Euthypro, and the question of whether morality is subjective or objective. The essential question is this: Is evil act X always evil? If so, then morality seems objective, but does that make it absolutely inflexible? If evil act X is not always evil, then morality seems subjective or relative.

Read More →






On Falsifiability: What Exactly Is Pseudoscience Anyways?

September 18, 2008

It's pretty simple to assume what pseudoscience means, right? "Pseudo" means fake, and "science" means, well…science. I didn't need to consult a dictionary for that. I decided to obtain a working definition of the word pseudoscience because upon going to use it, I realized I had only my personal interpretation of the word to draw upon, which I wanted to assure was correct and not skewed.

I will say that in the argument over pseudoscience, all roads lead to falsifiability. In general, any statement can fall into three categories:    

1. A statement which is falsifiable, but has not yet been falsified;    
2. A statement which is falsifiable, and has been shown to be false;    
3. A statement which is not falsifiable.

Put simply, unfalsifiable statements or falsifiable statements that have been proven false are not scientific statements. For this reason, I currently don't think that creationism or intelligent design qualify as scientific ideas. There might be an isolated component in any form of either idea that is falsifiable, however. For example, the various forms of the moon-dust argument.

Read More →






Extraterrestrials Exist

June 19, 2008

Well, so says Bob Lazar and countless thousands of others at least. I’d like to discuss a few claims from Mr. Lazar as well as a few claims made about him in the following short video. If you’re at all the type of person interested in the ET question, then this article is for you, but first I ask that you observe the evidence for yourself (the video associated with this post can no longer be found.

Read More →






Atheism And Theism – Both Logically Flawed

June 16, 2008

Many and possibly all traditional expressions of theism and atheism suffer from inherent logical flaws. The idea is in general accord with a debate I’m currently re-hashing with myself over whether a successful ontological argument exists, or whether one is even capable of existing, and if yes or no, then also on what grounds. My area of expertise is not philosophy or logic, and the presupposition in this particular argument is that I correctly understand the terms I use to support my thesis.

Read More →






Hello Intuition, Meet Empiricism: My Response To “A Different Way Of Knowing”

June 11, 2008

In A Different Way Of Knowing, the author begins with slamming insights about the value of the intuitive-creative processes, arguing persuasively that irrational decision-making processes can be valuable. Love, art and music all reject empiricism and involve listening subjectively to our hearts, feelings and intuitions, and nobody would argue that they lack value just because they aren’t arrived at through empiricism. Conceding that some aspects of life are better left to the intuitive method of gathering information, the author proceeds to argue that "the God hypothesis" is not one of them, and is better evaluated via empiricism and the scientific method. I object to the piece on several grounds, five of which follow.

Read More →






Analogies Between Marriage And Faith

June 2, 2008

I never thought I’d in any way, shape, or form be expressing these ideas publicly. They just peg me as your typical right-wing, corn-fed, midwestern Judeo-Christian-dogma-asserting-non-intellectual ignoramus. I’m sorry if the use of that stereotype offends or isolates anybody, but I feel it is a legitimate stereotype and its use represents the exception to my rule against them. But really, for the past few days now, these authentic realizations have forced themselves upon me with a crystal-clear lucidity I just can’t seem to shake.

Read More →






On Begging The Question And The Futility Of Circular Argumentation

May 22, 2008

I was never impressed by people who argued the Bible was true because the Bible said so. Very long ago I decided that if I was to study any one religion, I should study them all. This eventually led to the expanded horizon of studying religion's absence, which to me is philosophically futile without an accounting for existence. Hence my lifelong study of evolution.

Read More →






False Argument #12: Atheism Is Scientifically Tenable

May 19, 2008

It's often easy to spot faulty reasoning in somebody else's belief system, but how many of us rigorously apply equal scrutiny to our own cherished worldview?

The failure to do so is known as special pleading and I was recently accused of this intellectual atrocity by a good friend of mine while discussing the movie Zeitgeist. After weeks of hearing nothing but hype and praise about this film I'd love to tell you how disappointed I was with it, but now is not the time and you're more than welcomed to read the review. All you need to know for our dialog here is that the opening segments show in quick succession visual images depicting the epic problems of humanity, asking what could possibly be their cause.

Read More →






Drawing Conclusions From Faulty Reasoning

May 18, 2008

It has been said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and even that which we are unaware of or indifferent to is still applicable to us. The observation is apparently confirmed in that we were all subject to gravity prior to its discovery. While going out to eat one night, I observed a situation that perfectly illustrates this principle.

The following occurred at a restaurant where placing orders at the counter and seating yourself was the norm. There is a sign at the door explaining all this. As we were placing our orders, a man came up to the clerk and, rather rudely, voiced his dissatisfaction that he had sat waiting for someone to come and take his order. The hostess politely explained the order of things and even mentioned that there was a sign in the door of the restaurant explaining them as well. Nonetheless, the man still refused to acknowledge his own error, and further declared illogically that because he didn’t see the sign, it didn’t exist. His exact words to the hostess were, “If I can’t see it, then it’s not there.”

On faith that was not religious or dogmatic but placed entirely in the never-ending depth of nature, Manly P. Hall said, “There are many levels of life which we cannot see and know, yet which certainly exist." Although the existence of God or a soul that survives death are not things we can apprehend empirically such as a restaurant seating sign, unfortunately many people’s belief or disbelief in God hinges on the same principle of perception. See, in the situation at the restaurant, there was an objective and absolute reality that was in fact perceivable, and that was the presence of an informative sign at the door. It was there, regardless of whether anyone saw the evidence or not. The entire time the man spent in frustration was all in vain and completely avoidable. The whole time he sat there thinking to himself, ‘There’s no order or consistency in this place,’ there was. The point is that human failures of perception do not negate the objective and absolute truth of the a fact’s existence, or its potentiality to illuminate and inspire.






False Argument #11: Darwinism, Atheism And Evolution Lead To Genocide, Fascism, Holocaust

May 17, 2008

A common false argument based in misunderstanding and fear directly blames Darwinism, atheism and evolution for such atrocities as genocide, fascism, racism and the Holocaust. Like most false arguments, this one has some degree of basis in reality, but not of the degree that can support such illogical claims.

This false argument has its grain of truth in the history of eugenics. Defined neutrally, eugenics is the study of human betterment through means of gene manipulation and control. The movement itself is said to begin with Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In his work Hereditary Genius, Galton states his opinion that humanity should be eugenically regimented. Charles’ son Leonard Darwin was Chairman of the British Eugenics Society between 1911-1928, and vice-President of the 1912 and 1921 International Eugenics Congresses, the first of which was an offshoot of an earlier meeting by the predominantly German-controlled International Society for Racial Hygiene.

Read More →