tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post5502135348608284607..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Seeing Further With Science!David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35330178456700431212018-10-30T02:10:06.075-07:002018-10-30T02:10:06.075-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.siskahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07076079736141144027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7856884069697901192015-07-18T12:30:53.488-07:002015-07-18T12:30:53.488-07:00onward. I'll not be back here.onward. I'll not be back here.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67263430373984809402015-07-18T10:48:20.656-07:002015-07-18T10:48:20.656-07:00Travc I disagree. I have seen plenty of leftist a...Travc I disagree. I have seen plenty of leftist authoritarians. Ranging from Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot to US campus radicals who bullied everyone at the University, doing no good for the world while gathering disciplined throngs to poison and quash civil discourse. It happens today. The mad right may be our biggest problem right now. But NEVER deem the left innocuous.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91963389213261940532015-07-17T22:51:58.116-07:002015-07-17T22:51:58.116-07:00regarding "meaning", @Daniel said:
"...regarding "meaning", @Daniel said:<br />"Once again, if free will does not exist and the Self is only an illusion you can't given meaning to anything.<br />You're just a meat puppet."<br /><br />Umm... You're moving the goalposts. I was addressing your statement:<br />"A universe created by accident can have no meaning by definition."<br />Noting about free-will in there (and even if there was, it wouldn't really matter.)<br /><br />There is no reason I can see that a mere "meat puppet" can't give something meaning, at least from that lowly meat puppet's POV. I seriously doubt that you can provide an well reasoned argument to back up your assertion. Just being a meat puppet is actually pretty amazing... dumb matter and energy can do astonishing things when it is organized in particular ways.<br /><br />How about starting simple. Define what you mean by "meaning". Is it subjective or objective? If it is objective, how is it created/assigned and how does somebody perceive it and create a subjective experience of it?<br /><br />Personally, I find philosophy rather annoying, but I'm getting a strong sense that you're really terrified that a universe without God is a nihilistic void... and maybe clarifying your thinking about "meaning" could relieve some of that needless anxiety.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8183987957599780932015-07-17T22:24:44.070-07:002015-07-17T22:24:44.070-07:00Ok... Everybody's wrong on the religion <=&...Ok... Everybody's wrong on the religion <=> violence correlation ;p<br /><br />IMO, the relevant predictor is *authoritarianism*. More authoritarian = more prone to be violent and visa versa.<br /><br />I'm pretty confident there is data to back this up, so I'll go digging for it later (after I finish some work). I'd also bet that this correlation applies not just societies, but also individuals.<br /><br />As for religion... Well, there is a well established correlation between authoritarianism and religion. This definitely applies to individuals (there is data) and almost certainly applies to societies. It is just a correlation, but it is a pretty strong one. There are certainly non-religious authoritarians, but if you're looking (intentionally or not) for a mass of followers you can sway to your will, religious people are a much richer environment than non-religious folks.<br /><br />BTW: There is also a correlation between authoritarianism and right-wing (and self-described 'conservative') tendencies. The same dynamic applies... A demagogue spouting right-wing rhetoric has a much better chance of finding a following than a leftist. This explains the widespread success of right-wing media and failure of anyone to have even remotely comparable success in creating a left-wing version (not for lack of trying).Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17095025480550761562015-07-17T19:27:06.514-07:002015-07-17T19:27:06.514-07:00Paul SB said...
Re: Pascal's Wager,
"tryi...Paul SB said...<br />Re: Pascal's Wager,<br /><i>"trying to pull the wool over omniscient eyes strikes me as foolish"</i><br /><br />Yet consistent with the God of the Old Testament. (Adam and Eve hiding from God after eating the forbidden fruit. Or someone tricking God during an offering by taking all the good cuts and putting the skin over a pile of bones and offal.)<br /><br />(Maybe that's the solution to David's question, "why create a universe that looks godless?" You only get into heaven by being a strong atheist. That's what the gods are trying to breed. Because they don't need worshippers. Because CITOKATE. Progress only happens, even for gods, when children <i>don't</i> respect their elders.)<br /><br />Duncan,<br />Re: Myopia and distance viewing<br /><br />I think the revelation is that it's not the close-work itself (books, TV, or pre-industrial bookkeeping) that does the damage, but the lack of distance-viewing to balance the close-work. You won't get square eyes from sitting too close to the TV, but you will from not staring at the horizon occasionally.<br /><br />{adjusts glasses}Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5984737445772459632015-07-17T12:07:19.984-07:002015-07-17T12:07:19.984-07:00Carry on here, if you guys want. Great argument.
...Carry on here, if you guys want. Great argument.<br /><br />But officially....<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26123495990273791412015-07-17T12:05:57.687-07:002015-07-17T12:05:57.687-07:00David, I am not disagreeing with you on the issue ...David, I am not disagreeing with you on the issue of whether we are becoming more or less violent over time, just saying that grave data is problematic. <br /><br />Here, I have a treat for you. An interesting fellow who goes by the monkier "Dr. Beachcombing" has a marvelous blog on Odd History. You, or perhaps your daughter - whom I envy! - may find interesting this post on trying to interpret 12th century casualties.<br /><br />http://www.strangehistory.net/2015/07/11/seventeen-bodies-in-a-well-a-norwich-mystery/<br /><br />And if you tell me that Brinette got to work on that one I will envy her a great deal!<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28179499235468136462015-07-17T11:56:49.023-07:002015-07-17T11:56:49.023-07:00"You may not fob them off on the Western Enli..."You may not fob them off on the Western Enlightenment, which all of them hated, derided, despised and fought to destroy. A western enlightenment of liberal diversity and tolerance and competitive achievement that in turn crushed those evil movements, while classic Abrahamic religions stepped aside or watched helplessly."<br /><br />Zowie - quoted again for truth. Dr. Brin, ever thought about writing professionally? ;-)Steve Onoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20297768755473704432015-07-17T11:28:24.592-07:002015-07-17T11:28:24.592-07:00Ah, predictions! Read Spengler’s Decline of the W...<br />Ah, predictions! Read Spengler’s Decline of the West. The jeremaiads of Stalin and Hitler about the Decadent and declining West. Go on and rant about our decline, my friend. You’ll be crying out the same stuff when we have Star Trek. Because our position on such issues is determined not by facts, but by personality.<br /><br />Sorry, this one chaps my hide. That “Bolshevik, Stalinist, Nazi, Maoist, Khmer Rouge, etc.” were somehow examples of “non-religious” societies.<br /><br />They were UTTERLY religious. Their doctrines and justifications and incantations followed strict catechisms about utterly-foretold, transcendental glorification and romantic demonization of unbelievers. Critics of the incantations -- especially liberals and scientists -- were savagely repressed. So their specific dogmas were non-Abrahamic? So? They created priesthoods that interpreted holy writ, as handed down by prophets (Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler) who could not be questioned on pain of death and damnation. <br /><br />They were anything but "atheistic." They had their gods.<br /><br />You may not fob them off on the Western Enlightenment, which all of them hated, derided, despised and fought to destroy. A western enlightenment of liberal diversity and tolerance and competitive achievement that in turn crushed those evil movements, while classic Abrahamic religions stepped aside or watched helplessly.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61526860684768614492015-07-17T11:24:53.639-07:002015-07-17T11:24:53.639-07:00
Tacitus there were commoner mass grave pits outsi...<br />Tacitus there were commoner mass grave pits outside every town. It was the cheapest and easiest way to dispose of dangeous waste products and those pits are the richest source of archaeological-=forensic evidence. My daughter worked on the skeletons from one of them.<br /><br />=== As for Daniel==<br />DD’s screed are filled with interesting points… amid profound silliness. Yes, Kennedy was a macho SOB who plunged us into Vietnam – a hubristic mistake from which democrats have learned lessons and Republicans have not. http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-democrats-and-republicans-wage-war.html<br /><br />On the other hand the “redefining violence” thing is utter bull. The car vandalizing sicko who we refuse to kill is a sign that we are getting better, but aren’t yet skilled enough to match our ambition. In 20 years we’ll know how to help cure many more poorly functioning brains like his. But first we had to become a society that WANTS to do that… that wants not to be lazy and just kill the mentally ill. Your nostalgia for that approach is disturbing…<br /><br />…as is your failure to recognize the decline in ALL crime in advanced nations, across the last generation. <br /><br />My daughter dissected 12th century skeletons, last summer. We know that a huge fraction of people in the past suffered violent injuries, many of them forensically clearly coming from weapons. Moreover we know that ancients themselves openly declared they would burn cities and slaughter every inhabitant. Archaeological records show how often such burnings and slaughters happened in those times. The Caananite tells in the middle east show it happening MORE often than once per generation. And that was almost every town and village.<br /><br />Fer heaven’s sake. READ what Moses demanded the Israelites do to the Moabites and Edomites and people of Jericho. Um, yeah, show us religion’s moral authority. As for the NEW Testament, no document has ever been as vicious. (1) by declaring the Doctrine of Original Sin… that the DEFAULT condition of every single human baby is eternal damnation, for the silly mistake of a couple of ignorant, fruit-curious teenagers, a few thousand years earlier…<br /><br />…and (2) Revelations. Actually crediting that obscenity, that horrific, drooling-bloody sadistic schizophrenic rant as anything but the raving of a vicious psychopath – (Martin Luther agreed with me) – constitutes that greatest abnegation and spurning of moral authority in the history of human literature, theology or thought.<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27011116144972525592015-07-17T09:38:54.413-07:002015-07-17T09:38:54.413-07:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=29&v=wO61D9x6l...https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=29&v=wO61D9x6lNY<br />Off topic brain stretching.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12541939412892282972015-07-17T09:25:27.262-07:002015-07-17T09:25:27.262-07:00Far above, I said "I'm with Daniel on thi...Far above, I said "I'm with Daniel on this one" and I should have said "I'm with Alfred on this one," regarding types of atheism.<br />Not that it makes much difference now, but it's bugging me, so I have noted it.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36217898176289885292015-07-17T09:17:48.156-07:002015-07-17T09:17:48.156-07:00This whole debate seems to be trapped in 19th Cent...<i>This whole debate seems to be trapped in 19th Century thinking. The scientific community, at least, has gone beyond this</i><br /><br />I concur.Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62207258960314642472015-07-17T09:16:20.296-07:002015-07-17T09:16:20.296-07:00Morality is often taught with religion, but, like ...Morality is often taught with religion, but, like set theory is often taught with calculus, it's merely tradition. You can certainly learn set theory without the fundamental theorem, and humans can be taught morality, of whatever stripe, without religion. Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1285561307481127042015-07-17T07:35:10.966-07:002015-07-17T07:35:10.966-07:00It looks like someone has a really big ax to grind...It looks like someone has a really big ax to grind here. The constant picking at Pinker sounds very much like the 90's debate over Hernstein & Murray's "The Bell Curve." Too much argument by assertion, too much confirmation bias and highly selective data gathering (for example, I know from previous research that Thomas de Torquemada oversaw over 2000 executions personally, no mention is made of the Inquisition in other nations besides Spain, apparently because it is especially famous, the intense focus on 20th Century bloodshed committed mainly by Communist dictators, because that was the century we grew up in, while ignoring the bloodshed of previous centuries, like the Taiping Rebellion in China that killed more people than both world wars combined and was caused by a Baptist missionary, Tacitus' GIGO comment, which as a former archaeologist I can vouch for as well). It also neglects the possibility that the pattern we see may have little or nothing to do with religion or its absence at all and may have other causes completely, such as increased police forces to enforce law, dramatically increasing the certainty of punishment for crime, the creation of an international body to prevent crimes by nations, etc. In this case both the theists and atheists may be simply blowing a whole lot of wind and assuming that the propaganda they have been inculcated with is of primary, determinative importance here.<br /><br />Social scientists divide culture into three basic realms: Infrastructure, Structure and Superstructure. Infrastructure is the environment in which a society is embedded, its resources, limitations, natural hazards, etc. Structure is how a society is organized, which mostly means relationships of power, but not entirely. Power is something males tends to focus on obsessively, missing other important relationships, but that's a different barrel of fish. Superstructure is the level of belief, morals, values, expectations, norms and customs: all the stuff that non-scientists tend to think of as "culture." This entire discussion has focused on just one of these three realms, superstructure. This is exactly the modus operandi of propagandists, which is exactly what every religious (or anti-religious) institution is. If you want to explain sweeping patterns of history, complete reliance on just one of these levels is not just foolish, it is self-blinding. Changes in patterns of violence have to be understood in terms not just of "belief" but of social institutions and their power over society (Structure) and the limitations, hazards and effects of the physical environment (Infrastructure). This whole debate seems to be trapped in 19th Century thinking. The scientific community, at least, has gone beyond this.<br /><br />And this is to say nothing of the scapegoating issue.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60399617816333415992015-07-17T06:32:19.458-07:002015-07-17T06:32:19.458-07:00Coming in late but had to comment on the observati...Coming in late but had to comment on the observation that evidence from ancient graves has a predictive value regards violence levels in previous times. Uh, what percentage of people in the Roman era were actually buried in graves? Fairly small once you reckon that you had to be pretty posh to spring for a resting place that would survive to the modern era. For every nice stone sarcophagus there were quite likely a thousand peasants tossed into ditches somewhere. Heck that is not even addressing the issue of cremation or the reality that nice organized burials with the proper rites only happened in tranquil times. There were most likely a few rich merchants out there in the ditches too.<br /><br />GIGO<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66118964728856924662015-07-17T06:05:45.640-07:002015-07-17T06:05:45.640-07:00Just seen your latest
"But you will fail, he...Just seen your latest <br />"But you will fail, he warned, because you cannot believe in moral codes without simultaneously believing in a god who points at you with his fearsome forefinger and says "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not.""<br />Again you are on the wrong side of the data<br /><br />I beleive that Nietzsche prediction of the coming "total eclipse of all values" is accurate becasue he accurately predicted the horros of the 20th century caused by atheistic regimes. Again from Tom Wolfe's essay:<br /><br />He predicted (in Ecce Homo) that the twentieth century would be a century of "wars such as have never happened on earth," wars catastrophic beyond all imagining. And why? Because human beings would no longer have a god to turn to, to absolve them of their guilt; but they would still be racked by guilt, since guilt is an impulse instilled in children when they are very young, before the age of reason. As a result, people would loathe not only one another but themselves. The blind and reassuring faith they formerly poured into their belief in God, said Nietzsche, they would now pour into a belief in barbaric nationalistic brotherhoods: "If the doctrines...of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal, doctrines I consider true but deadly"—he says in an allusion to Darwinism in Untimely Meditations—"are hurled into the people for another generation...then nobody should be surprised when...brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non–brothers...will appear in the arena of the future."<br /><br />Why should we bother ourselves with a dire prediction that seems so far–fetched as "the total eclipse of all values"? Because of man's track record, I should think. After all, in Europe, in the peaceful decade of the 1880s, it must have seemed even more far–fetched to predict the world wars of the twentieth century and the barbaric brotherhoods of Nazism and Communism. Ecce vates! Ecce vates! Behold the prophet! How much more proof can one demand of a man's powers of prediction?<br /><br />Nietzsche was a prophet.<br /><br />Pinker is a sham.DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07087941506162882852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8871056606074865272015-07-17T06:01:11.409-07:002015-07-17T06:01:11.409-07:00Pinker's data is by its very nature incomplete...Pinker's data is by its very nature incomplete. <br /><br />His methodology is faulty and driven by ideolgy. <br /><br />He is a poor historian and a worse statistician.DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07087941506162882852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23799783112907996952015-07-17T05:58:51.876-07:002015-07-17T05:58:51.876-07:00The analyses of violence statistics by atheists ar...The analyses of violence statistics by atheists are skewed because atheists have to show that violence is declining. Given the more accurate analysis that violence remains as bad or worse, they would be forced to concede that even if religon were not true it at least has a utilitarian benifit in restraining our dark basic natures and preerving a peaceful society.<br /><br />Hence their desparate need to show that huanity is basicly good and religion is not needed.DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07087941506162882852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91094440810399628082015-07-17T05:55:07.744-07:002015-07-17T05:55:07.744-07:00more religious = more violence
More secular = less...more religious = more violence<br />More secular = less violence<br /><br />From a previous thread:<br /><br />As AN Wilson rightly pointed out, all of the atheistic totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (Bolshevik, Stalinist, Nazi, Maoist, Khmer Rouge, etc.) committed mass murder, democide, on a scale that ISIS can only dream about. Look up Prof. Rummel's study on democide in the 20th century. Rummel's work can be accessed via Marginal Revolution at:<br /><br />http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/11/democide.html<br /><br />What I found most interesting was the following comparisons:<br /><br />"So, the famine was intentional. What was its human cost? I had estimated that 27,000,000 Chinese starved to death or died from associated diseases. Others estimated the toll to be as high as 40,000,000. Chang and Halliday put it at 38,000,000, and given their sources, I will accept that. Now, I have to change all the world democide totals that populate my websites, blogs, and publications. The total for the communist democide before and after Mao took over the mainland is thus 3,446,000 + 35,226,000 + 38,000,000 = 76,692,000, or to round off, 77,000,000 murdered. This is now in line with the 65 million toll estimated for China in the Black Book of Communism, and Chang and Halliday's estimate of "well over 70 million." This exceeds the 61,911,000 murdered by the Soviet Union 1917-1987, with Hitler far behind at 20,946,000 wiped out 1933-1945.<br /><br />Discounting the 3,446,000 killed in the Sino-Japanese war prior to the start of Mao's rule, the Maoist PRC (with these new numbers for the deliberate, man-made famine during the Great Leap Forward) killed over 73,000,000 people. Over the 38 years of Maoist rule, this comes to an average of about 1.92 million per year.<br /><br />The democide rate of Hitler's 12 year Reich was about 1.75 million per year. The democide rate of the 70 year Stalinist USSR was about 0.88 million per year (about half that of the Third Reich). Stalin's (and the Stalinist system's) much greater total was the result of its much greater longevity. Hitler's democide rate was smaller, but still comparable to Mao's.<br /><br />The total for the three largest atheist totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (Stalinist, Nazi and Maoist) comes to approximately 160 million over 70 years. This does not include mass murder by secondary Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the Khmer Rouge and other atheist totalitarians, which raises to total to an estimated 200 million innocents murdered by atheists. AN Wilson is correct, the horrors of the 20th century stem from atheism and were carried out by atheists.<br /><br />By comparison, the religious equivalent - the Inquisition - was mild by comparison. From an Internet FAQ on the Inquisitions:<br /><br />"How many were executed by the Spanish Inquisition? By most standards, the records of the Spanish Inquisition are spectacularly good and a treasure trove for social historians as they record many details about ordinary people. Nothing like all the files have been analysed but from the third looked at so far, it seems the Inquisition, operating through out the Spanish Empire, executed about 700 people between 1540 and 1700 out of a total of 49,000 cases. It is also reckoned that they probably killed about two thousand during the first fifty years of operation when persecution against Jews and Moslems was at its most severe. This would give a total figure of around 5,000 for the entire three hundred year period of its operation."<br /><br />Compared to the ocean of blood spilled by the atheist totalitarians, the blood spilled by crusades, jihads, pogroms, inquisitions and persecutions is but a drop<br /><br />P.S. Please don't commit the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" by claiming the atheists totalitarians of the 20th century wer some kind of religion.DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07087941506162882852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1446901372835922852015-07-17T05:04:07.920-07:002015-07-17T05:04:07.920-07:00Forget the U.S. and look at France, a very atheist... Forget the U.S. and look at France, a very atheistic country.<br />It's interesting Daniel goes straight from Jesus to Hitler without passing Go.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26959556445066921152015-07-17T04:57:07.763-07:002015-07-17T04:57:07.763-07:00Hi Daniel
Just seen your latest
"But you w...Hi Daniel<br /><br />Just seen your latest <br /><br />"But you will fail, he warned, because you cannot believe in moral codes without simultaneously believing in a god who points at you with his fearsome forefinger and says "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not.""<br /><br />Again you are on the wrong side of the data<br />The most secular societies are the most law abiding and least violent - we have all of the countries in the world to compare and also the effects of increasing secularization<br /><br />The data is unequivocal<br />more religious = more violence<br />More secular = less violence<br /><br />A fine theory slain my a multitude of facts<br /> <br />Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57181669693307744662015-07-17T04:52:41.666-07:002015-07-17T04:52:41.666-07:00Daniel
As far as Pinker's data is concerned he...Daniel<br />As far as Pinker's data is concerned he has a lot more "solid" data than you give him credit for<br /><br />There are large numbers of old graves that have been excavated over the years, they all show much higher levels of violence in the bones than we see nowadays. <br /><br />In fact they show very definitely the pattern of reducing violence that Pinker asserts.<br /><br />His later data (19th century onwards) is also pretty damn good.<br />As somebody who made a living using statistical data to drive improvements for many years I will also say that there is nothing wrong with any of the statistical methods he used<br />Yes pure mathematicians can quibble about some of them - but the quibbles are orders of magnitude less than the changes he shows in the data<br /><br />"access to stabbing weapons" ??<br />I don't know of any period in history from ancient Greece to today when 90+% of the population did not have "access to stabbing weapons"<br /><br /><br />As far as the "Hitler alone ‘mostly responsible’ for the Second World War" <br />Which is the "Great Man" theory of history<br />It's irrelevant - WW2 is only about 2 sigma from the mean - so it's not an incredibly unlikely event<br />And something similar could have occurred without Hitler<br /> <br />His conclusion directly contradicts one of the three main ideas that I was brought up believing <br /><br />But with that level of data I have been forced to change my mind<br /> Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46674691219556144922015-07-17T04:36:51.316-07:002015-07-17T04:36:51.316-07:00Summary:
Pinker is by training a psychologist not...Summary:<br /><br />Pinker is by training a psychologist not an historian. As a member of the militant new Atheists he is a polemicist with an ideological axe to grind, not an unbiased sober analyst. He seeks to spread propaganda not discover truth.<br /><br />And the propaganda point he is trying to make is to show that we as a species no longer need religion to restrain our basic impulses. As an atheists his goal is to undermine the utility of religion as a foundation of social order.<br /><br />As for myself, I prefer the words of another atheist, Nietzsche, who had the courage to confront the consequences of his own atheism. From Tom Wolfe's essay:<br /><br />Nietzsche said that mankind would limp on through the twentieth century "on the mere pittance" of the old decaying God–based moral codes. But then, in the twenty–first, would come a period more dreadful than the great wars, a time of "the total eclipse of all values" (in The Will to Power). This would also be a frantic period of "revaluation," in which people would try to find new systems of values to replace the osteoporotic skeletons of the old. But you will fail, he warned, because you cannot believe in moral codes without simultaneously believing in a god who points at you with his fearsome forefinger and says "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not."<br /><br />Nietzsche is right and Pinker is wrong.DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07087941506162882852noreply@blogger.com