Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

We can't assume shared values, though. That's the major divergence between your position and mine.

We don't need to assume them. First, we just need to identify which values we have in common (see below). Second, values are what we persuade each other of using reason and axiomatic principles. To quote Harvard Justice professor Michael Sandel, "moral progress is the equilibrium found in an adversarial system" (paraphrased). The axiomatic principles by and large are, A.) On average we don't like to suffer. B.) On average we don't like to see others suffer. C.) Evolution endowed most of us with empathy, compassion and reciprocal altruism. D.) we are an evolved social species.

Not everyone has the same social values. The primary social need of the successful social darwinist is (apparently, at least) the need to exert power over the weak. For the slave trader, the need to profit from slavery clearly exceeds the need to reduce the suffering of other people. Same deal for the plantation owner.

We have learned through experience that there are strategies of cooperation and shared values that reduce suffering and increase well being. We know that this is what most of us want (see thought problem below). Social Darwinsim has been thoroughly debunked. As an evolved social species our best interests are, on average, coupled with the best interests of our fellow humans. This theory has both explanatory and predictive power. It has been verified with field research and mathematically through game theory. Social Darwinism has no model that has predictive and explanatory power for an evolved social species.

The sociopaths, psychopaths, etc., are statistical outliers. In a Democracy the statistical outliers have less control as they do under dictators and tyrants. Therefore shared values need not be assumed. We can discuss, debate, persuade and at the end of the day we can vote.

How we know what most people want.

#1 Thought problem: Okay, so here is your assignment. You need to design a society that you will live in for the rest of your life. You can create a totalitarian society with cruel and unusual punishment, slavery, no due process, no free speech, no freedom of association, etc., etc.. Or, you can create a modern liberal democracy with all of the typical fundamental freedoms. Here's the rub, you won't know your status in the society until the society is finished. Since most people are born into the lower tiers of society you are not likely to be the dictator or even among the privileged class.

Which do you choose? When offered this thought experiment most people design a Democratic society with due process, no slavery and with all of the features we find in today's modern liberal democracies. In other words, a free society where people are less likely to suffer and one in which people are more likely to flourish.

#2 People will risk their lives to flee societies where there is lots of suffering for a better life. East Germany, North Korea, Cuba. Refugees don't come from modern liberal democracies. They come from places where there is no freedom and people are more likely to suffer (see Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy).

Just as we know that people don't want to starve we know that people don't want to suffer. We know that people want well-being. These are not controversial.

Sorry for the long post. I rarely do that anymore.

I've found that most things declared axiomatic are anything but, upon closer inspection. (Although math stuff is an exception there.)

With all due respect that is not responsive to the point at hand. I'm countering your position about presupposition.

 

[RandFan]

Kelly, I don't want this to go on for page after page (besides its off topic) so I'll give you what I think is the evidence that I would need to change my mind. We may need to agree to disagree.

• If you can falsify the propositions A.) that most people do not want to feel pain and B.) that most people want to have well being and happiness then I would concede that it would be evidence against my argument.
• If you can falsify the notion that humans are an evolved social species, and/or that humans thrive better through reciprocal altruism and cooperation then I would find that to be significant.

Simply asserting that we don't have shared values isn't compelling in light of what we do know about human behavior and human societies. I freely admit that we as humans are not monolithic in all of our values. But that does not mean that we cannot objectively verify that there are many fundamental values that most of us share. Working from those we can with science, experience and reason to find ever better strategies to accomplish those goals.

In any event, I'll read your next response and try to keep my response brief. Fair enough?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It is not in the definition of A+, and as a white man, i don't feel rejected by the idea.

I'm sure it's not in the manifesto, but it's there in practice.

Can you justify your claim ?

Yes.

 

[theprestige]

To quote Harvard Justice professor Michael Sandel, "moral progress is the equilibrium found in an adversarial system" (paraphrased).

Okay, look: It's either a quote, or a paraphrase. It can't be both. If you want to cite this guy in support of your argument, cite what he actually said, not what some unspecified third party interpreted him as saying.

 

[kellyb]

Kelly, I don't want this to go on for page after page (besides its off topic) so I'll give you what I think is the evidence that I would need to change my mind. We may need to agree to disagree.

• If you can falsify the propositions A.) that most people do not want to feel pain and B.) that most people want to have well being and happiness then I would concede that it would be evidence against my argument.
• If you can falsify the notion that humans are an evolved social species, and/or that humans thrive better through reciprocal altruism and cooperation then I would find that to be significant.

Simply asserting that we don't have shared values isn't compelling in light of what we do know about human behavior and human societies. I freely admit that we as humans are not monolithic in all of our values. But that does not mean that we cannot objectively verify that there are many fundamental values that most of us share. Working from those we can with science, experience and reason to find ever better strategies to accomplish those goals.

In any event, I'll read your next response and try to keep my response brief. Fair enough?

Ok. About this one:

If you can falsify the notion that humans are an evolved social species, and/or that humans thrive better through reciprocal altruism and cooperation then I would find that to be significant.

I agree with most (almost all) of the above.

I agree that we as a species need (and needed) altruism, and that for most of us, "there are many fundamental values that most of us share." It's the exception to the rule that I'm honing in on, and how their working life philosophy can't be "debunked" with either scientific skepticism or logic.

Have you seen this?

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828

We are accustomed to think of sociopaths as violent criminals, but in The Sociopath Next Door, Harvard psychologist Martha Stout reveals that a shocking 4 percent of ordinary people—one in twenty-five—has an often undetected mental disorder, the chief symptom of which is that that person possesses no conscience. He or she has no ability whatsoever to feel shame, guilt, or remorse. One in twenty-five everyday Americans, therefore, is secretly a sociopath. They could be your colleague, your neighbor, even family. And they can do literally anything at all and feel absolutely no guilt.

How do we recognize the remorseless? One of their chief characteristics is a kind of glow or charisma that makes sociopaths more charming or interesting than the other people around them. They’re more spontaneous, more intense, more complex, or even sexier than everyone else, making them tricky to identify and leaving us easily seduced. Fundamentally, sociopaths are different because they cannot love. Sociopaths learn early on to show sham emotion, but underneath they are indifferent to others’ suffering. They live to dominate and thrill to win.

There are actual IRL people who actually do think like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sosmT3vsoKw

You can tell them that's counter to most people's morality, but the fact that there are more altruistic and empathetic people doesn't prove that they're (the non-altruistic) wrong, and neither does the usefulness of altruism for the survival of our species on a species-wide basis. On an individual level, being a real bastard is beneficial for them (and in the same way that the survival of the species depending upon altruism doesn't prove that everyone "should" be altruistic, the fact that being a f***er benefits the non-altruistic on an individual level doesn't prove that altruism is evil and greed is good, ala Ayn Rand.)

 

[Foolmewunz]

Today's totally subjective observation:

With the number of people who've fallen afoul of the "tar baby" trap of that thread criticizing the moderators, literally (yes, with the correct meaning of "literally") no one has posted anything in that thread in in a week-and-a-half.

Possible explanations (feel free to add your own):

> The moderators have listened to the dissenting voices and have had soul-searching conversations in the club house, so have made sure to make all their pronouncements in Solomon-like fairness. Ed is in his heaven and all's right with the world.

> They've finally silenced/banned all critics, so there's no one else left to dogpile.

> Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, the members are not fools and they've learned that it's a tar baby and bring no issues to that thread, knowing that that move represents the opening gavel in a kangaroo court hearing.

> It's a ghost town. The only members left, as mentioned by someone above, are propping up a few threads. They're running to the lowest posting rate since they opened. (In their initial phases, they got something like 1400 members signed up in a month, and there were 500+ posts a day. Now? They sign up a member or two a day and are getting an average of 110/115 posts per day - or just under 5 posts per hour.)

 

[alcorfr]

I'm sure it's not in the manifesto, but it's there in practice.
...
Yes.

It is not true, and i can justify my claim.

Nice way to argue and debate.

 

[chillzero]

It is not in the definition of A+, and as a white man, i don't feel rejected by the idea.

Can you justify your claim ?

It's not in the definition, but it seems to be in the practice. People are routinely told to check their privilege, and there is a ranking of who has more privilege than who.
When the founder makes statements such as “Dear smug humanists: My critique of the atheist movement included you. Your groups are infamous for being mostly old, white, men.”
then it is understandable that people perceive it that way.

 

[alcorfr]

It's not in the definition, but it seems to be in the practice. People are routinely told to check their privilege, and there is a ranking of who has more privilege than who.
When the founder makes statements such as “Dear smug humanists: My critique of the atheist movement included you. Your groups are infamous for being mostly old, white, men.”
then it is understandable that people perceive it that way.

If i were to find a stupid idea hold by, say James Randi, would i be justified to consider the whole foundation as stupid ?

How do you define 'practise' ?
I follow certain blogs of members of atheism+ who are white males, and who don't criticize people for being white males. Do they not belong to the practise of Atheism+ as well ?

People confuse, intentionally or not, the definition of atheism+ with stupid arguments made by certain proclamed adherents of atheism+, notably on the atheismplus forum.
And then claim that atheism+ is anti white-male.

This is fallacious.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry this longer than I had intended. Let me just say we are not that far apart in our thinking.

Have you seen this?

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828

Yes I have seen it. Mind science is a hobby of mine.

You can tell them that's counter to most people's morality, but the fact that there are more altruistic and empathetic people doesn't prove that they're (the non-altruistic) wrong, and neither does the usefulness of altruism for the survival of our species on a species-wide basis.

But this is not to the point of my argument. What is objectively true is that most of us want well being and most of us want to avoid pain. Most of us will have better and happier lives in a flourishing society. Just as we can objectively know that food is good for humans so can we know that strategies that improve the quality of life for humans is also good. There is less maladaptive behaviors and less pathology. We know that it is objectively true that poor people or people who are suffering have higher rates of pathology and maladaptive behaviors. So, one can be an ethical nihilist, and reject the idea of intrinsic morality but still acknowledge the consequences of one's actions and understand the golden rule. One can be a sociopath and see that a flourishing society is good for the sociopath. So, in a Democratic society we are less likely to have cruel and unusual punishment and more likely to have due process and freedom. It's simply what evolution gave us.

On an individual level, being a real bastard is beneficial for them (and in the same way that the survival of the species depending upon altruism doesn't prove that everyone "should" be altruistic, the fact that being a f***er benefits the non-altruistic on an individual level doesn't prove that altruism is evil and greed is good, ala Ayn Rand.)

If you can say that food is good for humans then you can say that a society of sociopaths is bad for humans. No one said everyone should be altruistic. I made mention of game theory. We know that there are free riders. But we also know through game theory that in a social species there will be a large number of those who cooperate and a small number of those that don't. I'm not trying to argue that there is an absolute morality. I'm arguing that through experience and reason we have a pretty good idea what is necessary for happy and healthy people.

To the extent that we can say anything is "good" for humans we can say that flourishing societies are better for nearly everyone. Look at Somalia or any other third world nation. Most people are poor so the rich cannot profit as much in Somalia as people can in the USA. Sociopaths will flourish better in a society where most people cooperate and are altruistic.

 

[RandFan]

Okay, look: It's either a quote, or a paraphrase.

It's a paraphrase.

If you want to cite this guy in support of your argument, cite what he actually said, not what some unspecified third party interpreted him as saying.

I heard Sandel say it. It's online at http://www.justiceharvard.org/. It's a very lengthy course and I'm not going to sit through the entire thing to get the exact quote. In any event, I'll paraphrase anyone I damn well want to paraphrase. If you don't like it then report me to the moderators or ignore me. Either way I don't care.

 

[Stout]

Cheers, I appreciate the input on what is and is not subject to skepticism and reason. So could it be sumarised that only some aspects of religion and politics are immune from critical thinking and not the subjects in their entirety ?

Like the YEC idea that the Earth is only 6K years old....but God put all those diosaur bones and geological evidence for a much older Earth on the planet just to give palentologists and geologists something to do in this life.

 

[chillzero]

If i were to find a stupid idea hold by, say James Randi, would i be justified to consider the whole foundation as stupid ?

If James Randi were to say that his definition of skepticism did not compare with the definition of, say, rational thinking, because the negative thing he perceives about rational thinking is that the community is dominated by white atheist women, then I would probably feel less welcome on his site, or within his organisation.

How do you define 'practise' ?

ah .... if you had just read on:

It's not in the definition, but it seems to be in the practice. People are routinely told to check their privilege, and there is a ranking of who has more privilege than who.

Perhaps it wasn't clear that I meant it is the practice on the forum ... but I see it in the blogs as well.

 

[kellyb]

Sorry this longer than I had intended. Let me just say we are not that far apart in our thinking.

Totally.

Yes I have seen it. Mind science is a hobby of mine.

Cool. Me, too. Have you read the free eBook "The Authoritarians" by any chance?

One can be a sociopath and see that a flourishing society is good for the sociopath. So, in a Democratic society we are less likely to have cruel and unusual punishment and more likely to have due process and freedom. It's simply what evolution gave us.

I'm not sure a successful sociopath cares much for freedom and Democracy for the masses. In fact, the new trend in the libertarian oligarch "community" seems to be a denunciation of Democracy, period.

Have you seen this? (It's really really really interesting. You won't regret reading it)

http://exiledonline.com/escape-from...-behind-the-libertarian-inspired-sea-castles/

I'm not trying to argue that there is an absolute morality.

Ahh...I thought you were, but must have been misreading you. I think we really are 99.5% in agreement, then.

To the extent that we can say anything is "good" for humans we can say that flourishing societies are better for nearly everyone. Look at Somalia or any other third world nation. Most people are poor so the rich cannot profit as much in Somalia as people can in the USA. Sociopaths will flourish better in a society where most people cooperate and are altruistic.

My impression is that for the fairly rare subset of people who are sociopathic and successful, they would prefer to have half the money they have as long as none was "stolen" by gov, as opposed to being 3 times more wealthy and having 20% of their income confiscated for universal benefits, or especially programs that alleviate the suffering of those they view as "the weak" (AKA, "the poor".) The best hard evidence I know of to support this is in that eBook The Authoritarians, and I can provide a page # if you've never read it.

 

[kellyb]

Cheers, I appreciate the input on what is and is not subject to skepticism and reason. So could it be sumarised that only some aspects of religion and politics are immune from critical thinking and not the subjects in their entirety ?

That's my position.

Like the YEC idea that the Earth is only 6K years old....but God put all those diosaur bones and geological evidence for a much older Earth on the planet just to give palentologists and geologists something to do in this life.

I'd say that's open to scrutiny via skepticism/critical thinking (unless the YEC is willing to concede that their hypothesis has as much supporting evidence as my hypothesis that it was actually the invisible dragon who lives in my carport that planted the fossil record - and YECs never admit to that.)

What I don't think can be falsified are things like "weak belief" in something like a deist god, where the believer openly admits it's just something they "feel" and it's just their personal opinion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It is not true, and i can justify my claim.

Nice way to argue and debate.

I have no interest in argument or debate on this topic. If you wish to do so, you'll have to pay me for my time.

I'm telling it like it is. Period.

 

[AlBell]

We don't need to assume them. First, we just need to identify which values we have in common (see below). Second, values are what we persuade each other of using reason and axiomatic principles. To quote Harvard Justice professor Michael Sandel, "moral progress is the equilibrium found in an adversarial system" (paraphrased). The axiomatic principles by and large are, A.) On average we don't like to suffer. B.) On average we don't like to see others suffer. C.) Evolution endowed most of us with empathy, compassion and reciprocal altruism. D.) we are an evolved social species.

We have learned through experience that there are strategies of cooperation and shared values that reduce suffering and increase well being. We know that this is what most of us want (see thought problem below). Social Darwinsim has been thoroughly debunked. As an evolved social species our best interests are, on average, coupled with the best interests of our fellow humans. This theory has both explanatory and predictive power. It has been verified with field research and mathematically through game theory. Social Darwinism has no model that has predictive and explanatory power for an evolved social species.

The sociopaths, psychopaths, etc., are statistical outliers. In a Democracy the statistical outliers have less control as they do under dictators and tyrants. Therefore shared values need not be assumed. We can discuss, debate, persuade and at the end of the day we can vote.

How we know what most people want.

#1 Thought problem: Okay, so here is your assignment. You need to design a society that you will live in for the rest of your life. You can create a totalitarian society with cruel and unusual punishment, slavery, no due process, no free speech, no freedom of association, etc., etc.. Or, you can create a modern liberal democracy with all of the typical fundamental freedoms. Here's the rub, you won't know your status in the society until the society is finished. Since most people are born into the lower tiers of society you are not likely to be the dictator or even among the privileged class.

Which do you choose? When offered this thought experiment most people design a Democratic society with due process, no slavery and with all of the features we find in today's modern liberal democracies. In other words, a free society where people are less likely to suffer and one in which people are more likely to flourish.

#2 People will risk their lives to flee societies where there is lots of suffering for a better life. East Germany, North Korea, Cuba. Refugees don't come from modern liberal democracies. They come from places where there is no freedom and people are more likely to suffer (see Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy).

Just as we know that people don't want to starve we know that people don't want to suffer. We know that people want well-being. These are not controversial.

Sorry for the long post. I rarely do that anymore.

With all due respect that is not responsive to the point at hand. I'm countering your position about presupposition.

Thanks RF: putting the E in JREF.

 

[rustypouch]

I have no interest in argument or debate on this topic. If you wish to do so, you'll have to pay me for my time.

I'm telling it like it is. Period.

I actually strongly agree with Scrut.

I'm scared.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

How do you define 'practise' ?
I follow certain blogs of members of atheism+ who are white males, and who don't criticize people for being white males. Do they not belong to the practise of Atheism+ as well ?

Curious...who are these bloggers?
The only A+ blogger I know of is Richard Carrier.

 

[bedlin88]

Curious...who are these bloggers?
The only A+ blogger I know of is Richard Carrier.

There is the Lousy Canuck, Jason Thibeault as well.