I agree with your first sentence but it all goes wrong from there.
Secular morality isn't about respecting each other's wants. People
have all sorts of crazy wants. Nothing in game theory suggests that I
should respect a paedophiles want to rape a child. So your argument
rests on a faulty supposition.
On Jul 3, 10:28 am, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with your first sentence but it all goes wrong from there.
> Secular morality isn't about respecting each other's wants. People
> have all sorts of crazy wants.
Desire is not logical, not even the desire to be alive. You
just want what you want. All wants are in that sense
illogical/"crazy".
In general, logic can be a means to obtaining a
goal, but it cannot provide ultimate goals.
> Nothing in game theory suggests that I
> should respect a paedophiles want to rape a child. So your argument
> rests on a faulty supposition.
On Jul 3, 10:28 am, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with your first sentence but it all goes wrong from there.
> Secular morality isn't about respecting each other's wants. People
> have all sorts of crazy wants. Nothing in game theory suggests that I
> should respect a paedophiles want to rape a child. So your argument
> rests on a faulty supposition.
Actually I'm ok with most of it. The problem lies in what is are
"benign theist beliefs"? Walt assumes they exist because he shuts his
eyes to the ways that the mere belief in god is faulty and malicious.
Also, Walt over simplifies the relationship between moderate theists
and extreme theists and misses how the former lends support to the
latter.
Take the most extreme fundamentalist Christian and the most liberal
unitarian Christian. You might not expect the fundamentalist to be
able to derive any sort of support of the liberal. Yet it is easy to
imagine:
Let's say fundamentalism can be rated on a scale of 1 to 100 with 1
being theists you never hear about because they aren't being rabidly
evangelical and generally keep their religion to themselves and 100
being Falwell.
Now, putting a 1 and a 100 together will highlight obvious differences
and they probablly will argue and fight as much as any atheist vs.
theist. But that's not how it works, despiute Walt's attempts to
depict it that way.
Distribution of theist population on this scale would most likely be a
bell curve, putting more people in the center (50) than at either
extreme.
Another concept to introduce is "birds of a feather flock together"
Religion is a social group and groupings will most likely have those
of similar fundamental ratings.
And finally there is the fact that the fundamentalists get a
disproportionate amount of media. They are more vocal and active.
Put these together and you have a 100 in a group with some 99's, more
98's, even more 97's, etc. etc. Now, the 99 won't agree with
everything the 100 says, but 99% of it. The 99s lend support to the
100s, the 98s to the 99s, the 97s to the 96s, and so one. Since the
higher up you go the more vocal you go, it will appear that the 100s
are in charge.
But that's all just appearances, right? No. Being so alike in thought
a 99 will agree with, and pretty act in according with the beliefs of
the 100, because their beliefs are pretty much the same. Where they
differ the difference is slight and, being more vocal and active, it
is no small task for the 100 to convince the 99 that his way is right,
even if only temporarily. This goes down the chain from 99 to 98, from
98 to 97, etc. etc. Now, at some point it fizzles out, but by that
time you will have had an extreme minority (the 100s) having had
influence a larger, less extreme population (99-).
The problem is, given the smooth, gradual spectrum you just can
eliminate one portion. Take away all the 100s and you've just merely
created NEW 100s (the old 99s) on a recalibrated scale.
Lastly, appearances are significant, especially in the views of the
100s. Even if their extreme directives do not filter down to the 1s,
the lack of response (positive or negative) from the lower extremes is
simply assumed to be tacit consent. They think themselves as having
the support of all, and act accordingly.
Even outside religious concerns Walts description of secular morality
is crude, at best. Stealing a candy has little effect on society.
Candy bars are numerous and cheap, so stealing one doesn't
significantly affect the wants of any other people. Thus, according to
Walt's morality here, we should not make stealing candybars a crime.
The issue here is that Walt is only considering single instances and
evaluating them isolated from other concerns. Rather he should be
evaluating things as what would happen if everyone was allowed to do
it.
This is the same sort of argument Democrats use to
call Republicans Fascist, and Republicans use to
call Democrats Communists. Some call it
a continuum fallacy:
> On Jul 3, 10:28 am, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with your first sentence but it all goes wrong from there.
> > Secular morality isn't about respecting each other's wants. People
> > have all sorts of crazy wants. Nothing in game theory suggests that I
> > should respect a paedophiles want to rape a child. So your argument
> > rests on a faulty supposition.
> Actually I'm ok with most of it. The problem lies in what is are
> "benign theist beliefs"? Walt assumes they exist because he shuts his
> eyes to the ways that the mere belief in god is faulty and malicious.
> Also, Walt over simplifies the relationship between moderate theists
> and extreme theists and misses how the former lends support to the
> latter.
> Take the most extreme fundamentalist Christian and the most liberal
> unitarian Christian. You might not expect the fundamentalist to be
> able to derive any sort of support of the liberal. Yet it is easy to
> imagine:
> Let's say fundamentalism can be rated on a scale of 1 to 100 with 1
> being theists you never hear about because they aren't being rabidly
> evangelical and generally keep their religion to themselves and 100
> being Falwell.
> Now, putting a 1 and a 100 together will highlight obvious differences
> and they probablly will argue and fight as much as any atheist vs.
> theist. But that's not how it works, despiute Walt's attempts to
> depict it that way.
> Distribution of theist population on this scale would most likely be a
> bell curve, putting more people in the center (50) than at either
> extreme.
> Another concept to introduce is "birds of a feather flock together"
> Religion is a social group and groupings will most likely have those
> of similar fundamental ratings.
> And finally there is the fact that the fundamentalists get a
> disproportionate amount of media. They are more vocal and active.
> Put these together and you have a 100 in a group with some 99's, more
> 98's, even more 97's, etc. etc. Now, the 99 won't agree with
> everything the 100 says, but 99% of it. The 99s lend support to the
> 100s, the 98s to the 99s, the 97s to the 96s, and so one. Since the
> higher up you go the more vocal you go, it will appear that the 100s
> are in charge.
> But that's all just appearances, right? No. Being so alike in thought
> a 99 will agree with, and pretty act in according with the beliefs of
> the 100, because their beliefs are pretty much the same. Where they
> differ the difference is slight and, being more vocal and active, it
> is no small task for the 100 to convince the 99 that his way is right,
> even if only temporarily. This goes down the chain from 99 to 98, from
> 98 to 97, etc. etc. Now, at some point it fizzles out, but by that
> time you will have had an extreme minority (the 100s) having had
> influence a larger, less extreme population (99-).
> The problem is, given the smooth, gradual spectrum you just can
> eliminate one portion. Take away all the 100s and you've just merely
> created NEW 100s (the old 99s) on a recalibrated scale.
> Lastly, appearances are significant, especially in the views of the
> 100s. Even if their extreme directives do not filter down to the 1s,
> the lack of response (positive or negative) from the lower extremes is
> simply assumed to be tacit consent. They think themselves as having
> the support of all, and act accordingly.
> Even outside religious concerns Walts description of secular morality
> is crude, at best. Stealing a candy has little effect on society.
> Candy bars are numerous and cheap, so stealing one doesn't
> significantly affect the wants of any other people. Thus, according to
> Walt's morality here, we should not make stealing candybars a crime.
> The issue here is that Walt is only considering single instances and
> evaluating them isolated from other concerns. Rather he should be
> evaluating things as what would happen if everyone was allowed to do
> it.
On Jul 3, 11:40 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is the same sort of argument Democrats use to
> call Republicans Fascist, and Republicans use to
> call Democrats Communists. Some call it
> a continuum fallacy:
And I am not employing this fallacy because I am not asserting that
the extreme ends are distinct, as is required here.
From the article:
"The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions can
not be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between
them there exists a continuum of states."
I was not demonstrating that two states are not distinct, I was
demonstrating that they are not isolated from one another, contrary to
your implications.
But my argument does have political implications in that moderates'
silence lends power to extreme Democrats and Repbulicans. I think this
is bad and I think the moderates (who are a silent majority) should
assert power. Unfortunately this is unlikely due to the polarizing
nature of politics. But I digress.
> On Jul 3, 10:53 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 10:28 am, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree with your first sentence but it all goes wrong from there.
> > > Secular morality isn't about respecting each other's wants. People
> > > have all sorts of crazy wants. Nothing in game theory suggests that I
> > > should respect a paedophiles want to rape a child. So your argument
> > > rests on a faulty supposition.
> > Actually I'm ok with most of it. The problem lies in what is are
> > "benign theist beliefs"? Walt assumes they exist because he shuts his
> > eyes to the ways that the mere belief in god is faulty and malicious.
> > Also, Walt over simplifies the relationship between moderate theists
> > and extreme theists and misses how the former lends support to the
> > latter.
> > Take the most extreme fundamentalist Christian and the most liberal
> > unitarian Christian. You might not expect the fundamentalist to be
> > able to derive any sort of support of the liberal. Yet it is easy to
> > imagine:
> > Let's say fundamentalism can be rated on a scale of 1 to 100 with 1
> > being theists you never hear about because they aren't being rabidly
> > evangelical and generally keep their religion to themselves and 100
> > being Falwell.
> > Now, putting a 1 and a 100 together will highlight obvious differences
> > and they probablly will argue and fight as much as any atheist vs.
> > theist. But that's not how it works, despiute Walt's attempts to
> > depict it that way.
> > Distribution of theist population on this scale would most likely be a
> > bell curve, putting more people in the center (50) than at either
> > extreme.
> > Another concept to introduce is "birds of a feather flock together"
> > Religion is a social group and groupings will most likely have those
> > of similar fundamental ratings.
> > And finally there is the fact that the fundamentalists get a
> > disproportionate amount of media. They are more vocal and active.
> > Put these together and you have a 100 in a group with some 99's, more
> > 98's, even more 97's, etc. etc. Now, the 99 won't agree with
> > everything the 100 says, but 99% of it. The 99s lend support to the
> > 100s, the 98s to the 99s, the 97s to the 96s, and so one. Since the
> > higher up you go the more vocal you go, it will appear that the 100s
> > are in charge.
> > But that's all just appearances, right? No. Being so alike in thought
> > a 99 will agree with, and pretty act in according with the beliefs of
> > the 100, because their beliefs are pretty much the same. Where they
> > differ the difference is slight and, being more vocal and active, it
> > is no small task for the 100 to convince the 99 that his way is right,
> > even if only temporarily. This goes down the chain from 99 to 98, from
> > 98 to 97, etc. etc. Now, at some point it fizzles out, but by that
> > time you will have had an extreme minority (the 100s) having had
> > influence a larger, less extreme population (99-).
> > The problem is, given the smooth, gradual spectrum you just can
> > eliminate one portion. Take away all the 100s and you've just merely
> > created NEW 100s (the old 99s) on a recalibrated scale.
> > Lastly, appearances are significant, especially in the views of the
> > 100s. Even if their extreme directives do not filter down to the 1s,
> > the lack of response (positive or negative) from the lower extremes is
> > simply assumed to be tacit consent. They think themselves as having
> > the support of all, and act accordingly.
> > Even outside religious concerns Walts description of secular morality
> > is crude, at best. Stealing a candy has little effect on society.
> > Candy bars are numerous and cheap, so stealing one doesn't
> > significantly affect the wants of any other people. Thus, according to
> > Walt's morality here, we should not make stealing candybars a crime.
> > The issue here is that Walt is only considering single instances and
> > evaluating them isolated from other concerns. Rather he should be
> > evaluating things as what would happen if everyone was allowed to do
> > it.- Hide quoted text -
> On Jul 3, 10:28 am, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with your first sentence but it all goes wrong from there.
> > Secular morality isn't about respecting each other's wants. People
> > have all sorts of crazy wants. Nothing in game theory suggests that I
> > should respect a paedophiles want to rape a child. So your argument
> > rests on a faulty supposition.
> Actually I'm ok with most of it. The problem lies in what is are
> "benign theist beliefs"? Walt assumes they exist because he shuts his
> eyes to the ways that the mere belief in god is faulty and malicious.
> Also, Walt over simplifies the relationship between moderate theists
> and extreme theists and misses how the former lends support to the
> latter.
> Take the most extreme fundamentalist Christian and the most liberal
> unitarian Christian. You might not expect the fundamentalist to be
> able to derive any sort of support of the liberal. Yet it is easy to
> imagine:
> Let's say fundamentalism can be rated on a scale of 1 to 100 with 1
> being theists you never hear about because they aren't being rabidly
> evangelical and generally keep their religion to themselves and 100
> being Falwell.
> Now, putting a 1 and a 100 together will highlight obvious differences
> and they probablly will argue and fight as much as any atheist vs.
> theist. But that's not how it works, despiute Walt's attempts to
> depict it that way.
> Distribution of theist population on this scale would most likely be a
> bell curve, putting more people in the center (50) than at either
> extreme.
> Another concept to introduce is "birds of a feather flock together"
> Religion is a social group and groupings will most likely have those
> of similar fundamental ratings.
> And finally there is the fact that the fundamentalists get a
> disproportionate amount of media. They are more vocal and active.
> Put these together and you have a 100 in a group with some 99's, more
> 98's, even more 97's, etc. etc. Now, the 99 won't agree with
> everything the 100 says, but 99% of it. The 99s lend support to the
> 100s, the 98s to the 99s, the 97s to the 96s, and so one. Since the
> higher up you go the more vocal you go, it will appear that the 100s
> are in charge.
> But that's all just appearances, right? No. Being so alike in thought
> a 99 will agree with, and pretty act in according with the beliefs of
> the 100, because their beliefs are pretty much the same. Where they
> differ the difference is slight and, being more vocal and active, it
> is no small task for the 100 to convince the 99 that his way is right,
> even if only temporarily. This goes down the chain from 99 to 98, from
> 98 to 97, etc. etc. Now, at some point it fizzles out, but by that
> time you will have had an extreme minority (the 100s) having had
> influence a larger, less extreme population (99-).
> The problem is, given the smooth, gradual spectrum you just can
> eliminate one portion. Take away all the 100s and you've just merely
> created NEW 100s (the old 99s) on a recalibrated scale.
So let me simply address this part for an instant: so let's assume
that the 1's are, generally, good and reasonable theists who cause no
problems for anyone else, and whose beliefs you'd consider odd but no
odder than, say, people who like to watch American Idol (you seem to
argue against that in your first paragraph, but I'll put that aside
for a moment). Now, imagine that we take away all the 100s and 99s
and so on until we're left with ONLY the 1s. You can argue --
reasonably -- that we could then create new 100s on a recalibrated
scale. However, if we accept that these 100s don't change their
behaviour at all from when they were 1s, these recalibrated 100s
aren't problems for anyone
and there's no reason to be anti-theist about them.
So when we recalibrate the scale, we also have to recalibrate whether
or not the behaviour is still harmful. This paragraph doesn't do
that.
> Lastly, appearances are significant, especially in the views of the
> 100s. Even if their extreme directives do not filter down to the 1s,
> the lack of response (positive or negative) from the lower extremes is
> simply assumed to be tacit consent. They think themselves as having
> the support of all, and act accordingly.
Which is a common concern, and a general mistake. Everyone listens to
the vocal in politics and everything else because they think that if
the others disagreed, they'd speak up. But note that in large part
your 1s aren't saying anything because it's part of their belief that
they NOT say anything; they don't evangelize about their beliefs and
make them strictly personal. This would include not criticizing other
religions for their beliefs. So assuming that they agree because they
don't say anything -- from either side -- is simply wrong; their real
intent is entirely different. So no one can read support from the
100s from the silence of the 1s; they do the same thing whether they
agree or disagree with the 100s.
When this crosses sect boundaries, it gets even worse; people who are
1s on the religious scale will feel little reason to criticize other
religions openly if religion is a personal choice to them, and it is
well-known that different sects don't agree with each other, even to
the point of war at times. So anyone -- on either side -- who assumes
that if an Anglican doesn't openly argue against a Catholic on a
matter of doctrine that they agree with the Catholic reveals nothing
more than that they don't understand the history of religions in
general.
Knowing this, is advocating to eliminate all theism/religions the
answer to your continuum problem. No. At best, it seems that the
anti-theist should be railing against the malicious religions and
promoting -- in a "If you have to have a religion, pick this one!"
sense -- the benign ones, and encouraging the 1s to speak out and
demonstrate their religion more publically (without having to
aggressively advocate against others). Only if one thinks that there
are NO benign religions -- even to the extent of feeling towards them
the same way they feel towards people who watch American Idol -- can a
strong anti-theism be justified, but that is a completely different
story.
> On Jul 3, 10:53 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 10:28 am, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree with your first sentence but it all goes wrong from there.
> > > Secular morality isn't about respecting each other's wants. People
> > > have all sorts of crazy wants. Nothing in game theory suggests that I
> > > should respect a paedophiles want to rape a child. So your argument
> > > rests on a faulty supposition.
> > Actually I'm ok with most of it. The problem lies in what is are
> > "benign theist beliefs"? Walt assumes they exist because he shuts his
> > eyes to the ways that the mere belief in god is faulty and malicious.
> > Also, Walt over simplifies the relationship between moderate theists
> > and extreme theists and misses how the former lends support to the
> > latter.
> > Take the most extreme fundamentalist Christian and the most liberal
> > unitarian Christian. You might not expect the fundamentalist to be
> > able to derive any sort of support of the liberal. Yet it is easy to
> > imagine:
> > Let's say fundamentalism can be rated on a scale of 1 to 100 with 1
> > being theists you never hear about because they aren't being rabidly
> > evangelical and generally keep their religion to themselves and 100
> > being Falwell.
> > Now, putting a 1 and a 100 together will highlight obvious differences
> > and they probablly will argue and fight as much as any atheist vs.
> > theist. But that's not how it works, despiute Walt's attempts to
> > depict it that way.
> > Distribution of theist population on this scale would most likely be a
> > bell curve, putting more people in the center (50) than at either
> > extreme.
> > Another concept to introduce is "birds of a feather flock together"
> > Religion is a social group and groupings will most likely have those
> > of similar fundamental ratings.
> > And finally there is the fact that the fundamentalists get a
> > disproportionate amount of media. They are more vocal and active.
> > Put these together and you have a 100 in a group with some 99's, more
> > 98's, even more 97's, etc. etc. Now, the 99 won't agree with
> > everything the 100 says, but 99% of it. The 99s lend support to the
> > 100s, the 98s to the 99s, the 97s to the 96s, and so one. Since the
> > higher up you go the more vocal you go, it will appear that the 100s
> > are in charge.
> > But that's all just appearances, right? No. Being so alike in thought
> > a 99 will agree with, and pretty act in according with the beliefs of
> > the 100, because their beliefs are pretty much the same. Where they
> > differ the difference is slight and, being more vocal and active, it
> > is no small task for the 100 to convince the 99 that his way is right,
> > even if only temporarily. This goes down the chain from 99 to 98, from
> > 98 to 97, etc. etc. Now, at some point it fizzles out, but by that
> > time you will have had an extreme minority (the 100s) having had
> > influence a larger, less extreme population (99-).
> > The problem is, given the smooth, gradual spectrum you just can
> > eliminate one portion. Take away all the 100s and you've just merely
> > created NEW 100s (the old 99s) on a recalibrated scale.
> So let me simply address this part for an instant: so let's assume
> that the 1's are, generally, good and reasonable theists who cause no
> problems for anyone else, and whose beliefs you'd consider odd but no
> odder than, say, people who like to watch American Idol (you seem to
> argue against that in your first paragraph, but I'll put that aside
> for a moment). Now, imagine that we take away all the 100s and 99s
> and so on until we're left with ONLY the 1s. You can argue --
> reasonably -- that we could then create new 100s on a recalibrated
> scale. However, if we accept that these 100s don't change their
> behaviour at all from when they were 1s, these recalibrated 100s
> aren't problems for anyone
> and there's no reason to be anti-theist about them.
Except that's an impossible task opposite the "Continuity problem"
Walt brought up. While two points on the spectrum are not entirely
indistinguishable, neither are they completely distinguishable. Why
whittle it down to the 1's? What's wrong with the 2's, since they will
be 99% alike? And then so on for the 3s, the 4s, etc. etc. As long as
your threshold of tolerance is greater than the difference between
each rating (1, 2) then you logically can't distinguish between
adjacent ratings.
Another thing would be, if you are willing to get rid of all but the
1s, why not just go one step further and get rid of all but the 0s?
Even accepting this as a viable solution we could only apply it to a
static population. This can't account for changing beliefs and the
introduction of new members.
> So when we recalibrate the scale, we also have to recalibrate whether
> or not the behaviour is still harmful. This paragraph doesn't do
> that.
No, it doesn't, but neither was that the main point.
> > Lastly, appearances are significant, especially in the views of the
> > 100s. Even if their extreme directives do not filter down to the 1s,
> > the lack of response (positive or negative) from the lower extremes is
> > simply assumed to be tacit consent. They think themselves as having
> > the support of all, and act accordingly.
> Which is a common concern, and a general mistake. Everyone listens to
> the vocal in politics and everything else because they think that if
> the others disagreed, they'd speak up. But note that in large part
> your 1s aren't saying anything because it's part of their belief that
> they NOT say anything; they don't evangelize about their beliefs and
> make them strictly personal. This would include not criticizing other
> religions for their beliefs. So assuming that they agree because they
> don't say anything -- from either side -- is simply wrong; their real
> intent is entirely different. So no one can read support from the
> 100s from the silence of the 1s; they do the same thing whether they
> agree or disagree with the 100s.
Yes, and I addressed this. Me thinking that the 100s have the support
of everyone because of lack of contradiction would be wrong. In this
regard appearances are irrelevant and nothing to base a conclusion off
of. However, if the 100s themselves believe that they have the support
of everyone (even if they don't) then that IS significant because that
affects their actions. They are more likely to be bold and daring if
they think they have popular support than if they didn't. So while
*my* interpretation of the actual support for the 100s is irrelevant,
*their* interpretation of the support they have *is*.
> When this crosses sect boundaries, it gets even worse; people who are
> 1s on the religious scale will feel little reason to criticize other
> religions openly if religion is a personal choice to them, and it is
> well-known that different sects don't agree with each other, even to
> the point of war at times. So anyone -- on either side -- who assumes
> that if an Anglican doesn't openly argue against a Catholic on a
> matter of doctrine that they agree with the Catholic reveals nothing
> more than that they don't understand the history of religions in
> general.
This is generally avoided by sticking to vague and general issues
common to the sects of a single religion. When you see, say, a
Christian figure pontificating, it's generally not about the validity
of transubstantiation, or whether some apocryphal book is actually
canon, or the necessity of baptisim. It's usually, and cleverly, about
things that all Christians generally believe in (divinity of Jesus
Christ, importance of 10 commandements, yada yada). This is even used
to unify cross-religious boundaries by saying: "Well we all believe in
god...".
> Knowing this, is advocating to eliminate all theism/religions the
> answer to your continuum problem. No. At best, it seems that the
> anti-theist should be railing against the malicious religions and
> promoting -- in a "If you have to have a religion, pick this one!"
> sense -- the benign ones, and encouraging the 1s to speak out and
> demonstrate their religion more publically (without having to
> aggressively advocate against others). Only if one thinks that there
> are NO benign religions -- even to the extent of feeling towards them
> the same way they feel towards people who watch American Idol -- can a
> strong anti-theism be justified, but that is a completely different
> story.
But if we are going to go through the trouble of eliminating all the
religious sects that are openly and overwhelming malignant, what is
the issue with just going a few steps further and eliminating the
source of the illogical and rational behavior in the first place:
belief in god?
The belief that removing god from society will turn us into
nihilistic, anarchistic, hedonistic, cannibals is generally on the 100
side of the scale. So if we are already getting rid of them and
changing 1s to 0s will not be a really big change, I don't see what
the problem is.
