Christopher Hitchens dies aged 62


Spartan117
 Share

Recommended Posts

"A contrarian in life, the writer Christopher Hitchens united the world in death, with friends, colleagues and even debating opponents joining to celebrate his fearless intellect, ready wit and diamantine prose after he died from cancer at the age of 62."

Link-O-Matic to full article

Once upon a time, in a lifetime far far away .... Christopher Hitchens was my hero. I loved watching his debates. He was brilliant, and he had a real talent for making people look stupid. Something I looked up to, at the time. He was as atheist as atheist could be, but was super Republican at the same time. An odd combination. I wonder if his family will give me permission to do his temple work ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I remember watching HBO when Dennis Miller had his Friday night show on and I seem to remember watching an interview with some reporter who seemed like he was half drunk and he wrote a book bashing Mother Teresa. I wasn't too interested in the subject but did think it was really low class to criticize that woman. Now I'm wondering if that person I saw interviewed was Hitchens. I think it was.

I recently got a book from the library by him - How Religion Poisons Everything. I checked it out simply because of the brutal title. I got through the first three pages and gave up. I didn't care for his writing style.

I did flip through it - he does go after all main religions, including LDS. I did read something in that book or online by him that really hit true - he was talking when he was young and he first met English politicians and found most of them very un-remarkable and even rather dumb. In other words - not special or amazing at all. If only Americans could wake up and see many of our politicians are exactly like that - nothing special at all, I suspect many would be voted out, on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A contrarian in life, the writer Christopher Hitchens united the world in death, with friends, colleagues and even debating opponents joining to celebrate his fearless intellect, ready wit and diamantine prose after he died from cancer at the age of 62."

Link-O-Matic to full article

Once upon a time, in a lifetime far far away .... Christopher Hitchens was my hero. I loved watching his debates. He was brilliant, and he had a real talent for making people look stupid. Something I looked up to, at the time. He was as atheist as atheist could be, but was super Republican at the same time. An odd combination. I wonder if his family will give me permission to do his temple work ...

RIP Christopher Hitchens

Edited by Tyler90AZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember watching HBO when Dennis Miller had his Friday night show on and I seem to remember watching an interview with some reporter who seemed like he was half drunk and he wrote a book bashing Mother Teresa. I wasn't too interested in the subject but did think it was really low class to criticize that woman. Now I'm wondering if that person I saw interviewed was Hitchens. I think it was.

I recently got a book from the library by him - How Religion Poisons Everything. I checked it out simply because of the brutal title. I got through the first three pages and gave up. I didn't care for his writing style.

I did flip through it - he does go after all main religions, including LDS. I did read something in that book or online by him that really hit true - he was talking when he was young and he first met English politicians and found most of them very un-remarkable and even rather dumb. In other words - not special or amazing at all. If only Americans could wake up and see many of our politicians are exactly like that - nothing special at all, I suspect many would be voted out, on both sides.

Your post was fine until you turned it political at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As some of you know, I'm a life-long skeptic and, perhaps, closer to Hitchens in my beliefs than most people here at lds.net. But his writing to me -- particularly "How Religion Poisons Everything" -- seems superficial, badly researched, and not very convincing. This may derive from his experience as a journalist. People like Richard Dawkins (a scientist) seem to me vastly superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As some of you know, I'm a life-long skeptic and, perhaps, closer to Hitchens in my beliefs than most people here at lds.net. But his writing to me -- particularly "How Religion Poisons Everything" -- seems superficial, badly researched, and not very convincing. This may derive from his experience as a journalist. People like Richard Dawkins (a scientist) seem to me vastly superior.

In the realm of advancing atheism, Dawkins and Hitchens were cut from the same cloth. The difference is that Hitchens was vastly superior in expressing his vilification of and distaste for religion, and thus exposing his blatant prejudices. Dawkins hides his atheism and religious hostilities behind science. Both are/were intelligent men, but neither has/had a strong argument against religion beyond "it's stupid and I dislike it". I object, not to their atheism, but to their implicit dishonesty in their treatment of the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are/were intelligent men, but neither has/had a strong argument against religion beyond "it's stupid and I dislike it". I object, not to their atheism, but to their implicit dishonesty in their treatment of the topic.

Oh, come now, that claim about their alleged lack of arguments against religion is patently untrue. I'll demonstrate this in particular with Dawkins. Here are just a few things he brings up:

a) Religion is riddled with internal and historical contradictions, decimating the credibility thereof.

b) There is no proof-positive for god. We've no more evidence for god than we do for fairies. He sees no positive evidence for the existence of a higher power.

c) Religion tends to run in families. That is, we tend to have the religions of our parents. And it always just so happens to be the "right" religion. Curious, isn't it?

If you'll notice, none of those are "it's stupid and I dislike it", nor remotely close.

I'll end with a quote, summarizing one of Dawkins' arguments:

"Anything for which we make a claim of existence must be demonstrated to manifest in a way that differentiates it from 'nothing'. Otherwise, what does it mean to exist, if things that are identical to 'nothing' are to be reasonably considered existent?"

-Matt Dillahunty

God Bless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, come now, that claim about their alleged lack of arguments against religion is patently untrue. I'll demonstrate this in particular with Dawkins. Here are just a few things he brings up:

a) Religion is riddled with internal and historical contradictions, decimating the credibility thereof.

"Religion" is a monolith? So I can equally well say that "science" is "riddled with internal and historical contradictions, decimating the credibility thereof". Right?

b) There is no proof-positive for god.

There is no proof positive for the sun. There is no proof positive for the existence of OvisAries.

Do you not see that all existential arguments are arguments about definitions of linguistic tokens?

We've no more evidence for god than we do for fairies.

Or the sun. Or you.

He sees no positive evidence for the existence of a higher power.

Curiously, I do. So what makes his perception more reliable than mine?

c) Religion tends to run in families. That is, we tend to have the religions of our parents. And it always just so happens to be the "right" religion. Curious, isn't it?

Hair color, too, tends to run in families, strong evidence that it does not exist.

If you'll notice, none of those are "it's stupid and I dislike it", nor remotely close.

I'd say they're pretty close.

I'll end with a quote, summarizing one of Dawkins' arguments:

"Anything for which we make a claim of existence must be demonstrated to manifest in a way that differentiates it from 'nothing'. Otherwise, what does it mean to exist, if things that are identical to 'nothing' are to be reasonably considered existent?"

-Matt Dillahunty

God Bless!

So using the above definition, demonstrate the existence of the sun as opposed to nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After taking a few moments to shake off my astonishment at your comments and recenter myself, I've decided that there must have been a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere.

"Religion" is a monolith? So I can equally well say that "science" is "riddled with internal and historical contradictions, decimating the credibility thereof". Right?

Apologies, indeed. "Religion" is very vague. Let's be specific then, shall we? For your consideration, the Bible: http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

There is no proof positive for the sun. There is no proof positive for the existence of OvisAries.

Oh dear. Yes, Mr. Vort, yes there is proof-positive that the sun and I exist. The sun and I can both by felt, seen, and otherwise detected in measurable ways. The sun and I can be demonstrated clearly and absolutely to have an effect on events outside of ourselves. The sun and I have both been demonstrated to manifest in meaningful ways that differentiate us from 'nothing'.

Do you not see that all existential arguments are arguments about definitions of linguistic tokens?

The questionable veracity of that statement aside, what you've said is irrelevant. Either things exist or they don't. That is a fact. "Linguistic tokens" are irrelevant to the overwhelmingly obvious fact that there is a giant hydrogen fusion reactor in the sky that heats the earth, or to the existence or nonexistence of anything else for that matter. Again: things exist, or they don't.

Or the sun. Or you.

Again, there's extraordinarily overpowering evidence that the sun exists. And that I exist, for that matter. Again, both the sun and I manifest in ways that meaningfully differentiate us from 'nothing'. For further reference on how we know the sun exists, I'll refer you here: Solar System Exploration: Planets: Sun: Overview

Curiously, I do. So what makes his perception more reliable than mine?

He bases his beliefs upon what he rationally knows and what he can reasonably justify to be true. He simply sees no evidence for the existence of a higher being. I, for one, am always interested in new pieces of evidence for our Lord and Savior. If you have some new pieces of evidence, upon which you surely base your rational, reasonable beliefs, please share. That would, indeed, make your perception equally reliable to Dr. Dawkins', if they shared a common base in reality. I'm sure the community at large would benefit from the sharing of any such evidence you have. Please, oblige us.

Hair color, too, tends to run in families, strong evidence that it does not exist.

Wow, judging by your comparison of my "nurture" type prevalence with a genetic trait, you've managed to miss my point by aeons. Apologies for not being more explicit. I was pointing out that people generally believe the religion in which they were brought up. Merely illustrating the fact that this "absolute divine truth about the universe" that is religion depends in large part upon the geography of your birth. For instance, if you had been born in India, you'd likely have been Hindu. Had you been born in Pakistan, you'd likely be a Muslim. In any of these situations, you would just know that your religion was the right one, as followers of religions usually do. Since they cannot all be correct, I was merely pointing out this glaring inconsistency as something that Dr. Dawkins finds to be counter to the existence of a higher power.

I'd say they're pretty close.

Really? The ideas that there are a) historical and internal inaccuracies, b) no pieces of positive evidence, and c) indoctrination-based propagation all equate in your mind to Dr. Dawkins saying "it's stupid and I dislike it"? Don't be ridiculous, that's clearly not the case, my friend. None of those points have any connotations of personal dislike, they're all factual, quantifiable statements which give him, and many others, pause. To say that the only argument that Dr. Dawkins can make against religion is that "it's stupid and I dislike it" is patently ludicrous.

So using the above definition, demonstrate the existence of the sun as opposed to nothing.

As I've said before, the sun manifests in a meaningful way that differentiates it from nothing. We can measure electromagnetic radiation, heat, diameter, circumference, surface area, solar flare frequency, acceleration due to gravity, luminosity, photospheric composition, etcetera. To reiterate: the sun manifests in such a way as to meaningfully, quantifiable, and undoubtedly distinguish it from 'nothing'.

I'm only being logical. And remember: God created logic. It'd be a shame for us to fail to grasp the basic principles and uses thereof. Shame indeed.

Your fellow servant of Our Lord,

OvisAries

God Bless!

Edited by OvisAries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After taking a few moments to shake off my astonishment at your comments and recenter myself, I've decided that there must have been a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere.

Apologies, indeed. "Religion" is very vague. Let's be specific then, shall we? For your consideration, the Bible: http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

Oh dear. Yes, Mr. Vort, yes there is proof-positive that the sun and I exist. The sun and I can both by felt, seen, and otherwise detected in measurable ways.

Proof based on sensory perception? Every night, I feel, see, and otherwise detect things in measurable ways (just look at my EEG) that do not exist.

The sun and I can be demonstrated clearly and absolutely to have an effect on events outside of ourselves.

How? I don't believe it.

The sun and I have both been demonstrated to manifest in meaningful ways that differentiate us from 'nothing'.

Only if you define the particular sensory impressions you use as "proof". Given how unreliable our sensory impressions are in many instances, I dispute that as "proof".

The questionable veracity of that statement aside, what you've said is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is not irrelevant; rather, it is the ultimate basis of all philosophy. Without linguistic tokens, meaningful abstract thought does not exist.

Either things exist or they don't. That is a fact.

Prove this. (Hint: cogito ergo sum doesn't count as a proof.)

"Linguistic tokens" are irrelevant to the overwhelmingly obvious fact that there is a giant hydrogen fusion reactor in the sky that heats the earth, or to the existence or nonexistence of anything else for that matter.

This is no more obvious to me than is the existence of God. So prove it.

Again: things exist, or they don't.

Still awaiting your proof.

Again, there's extraordinarily overpowering evidence that the sun exists.

Please note that your mere say-so does not qualify as proof, overwhelming or otherwise.

And that I exist, for that matter. Again, both the sun and I manifest in ways that meaningfully differentiate us from 'nothing'. For further reference on how we know the sun exists, I'll refer you here: Solar System Exploration: Planets: Sun: Overview

Sadly, a web site URL does not qualify as undeniable proof. Otherwise, I can easily prove God exists by referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He bases his beliefs upon what he rationally knows and what he can reasonably justify to be true.

Yet how much of what he "knows" is wrong? When modern quantum theory is shown to be deficient and another scientific revolution overthrows current paradigms, his "knowledge" will be seen as a quaint effort of approximation by someone who didn't understand how things really are. What kind of "truth" is that?

He simply sees no evidence for the existence of a higher being.

Yes, I understand that. But that he fails to see the evidence hardly demonstrates that the evidence does not exist.

I, for one, am always interested in new pieces of evidence for our Lord and Savior. If you have some new pieces of evidence, upon which you surely base your rational, reasonable beliefs, please share. That would, indeed, make your perception equally reliable to Dr. Dawkins', if they shared a common base in reality. I'm sure the community at large would benefit from the sharing of any such evidence you have. Please, oblige us.

The evidence has been shared here extensively. Please feel free to review the archives of the various forums.

Wow, judging by your comparison of my "nurture" type prevalence with a genetic trait, you've managed to miss my point by aeons. Apologies for not being more explicit. I was pointing out that people generally believe the religion in which they were brought up. Merely illustrating the fact that this "absolute divine truth about the universe" that is religion depends in large part upon the geography of your birth. For instance, if you had been born in India, you'd likely have been Hindu. Had you been born in Pakistan, you'd likely be a Muslim. In any of these situations, you would just know that your religion was the right one, as followers of religions usually do. Since they cannot all be correct, I was merely pointing out this glaring inconsistency as something that Dr. Dawkins finds to be counter to the existence of a higher power.

You have failed to establish any inconsistency, and your demonstration is logically unsound. You would have me believe that since many east Asians believe in acupuncture pressure points and many Haitians believe in voodoo, therefore science is totally dependent on your birthplace and is too inconsistent to believe.

Of course, science itself is riddled with internal contradictions; witness the tension between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics. The two are not compatible and, so far, have not been harmonized. You simply have to pick the tool set you wish to use for a given problem and hope you arrive at a reasonable answer. The best attempt at harmonization, string theory, is utterly useless as a predictive tool.

Really? The ideas that there are a) historical and internal inaccuracies, b) no pieces of positive evidence, and c) indoctrination-based propagation all equate in your mind to Dr. Dawkins saying "it's stupid and I dislike it"?

Yes, unless Dr. Dawkins is willing to apply the same yardstick to science.

Don't be ridiculous, that's clearly not the case, my friend.

You keep saying this, but you provide not a shred of proof.

To say that the only argument that Dr. Dawkins can make against religion is that "it's stupid and I dislike it" is patently ludicrous.

Name-calling does not establish your argument.

As I've said before, the sun manifests in a meaningful way that differentiates it from nothing.

Of course it does. So does God.

I'm only being logical.

So far, your logic has failed to provide any proof. I'll be interested to hear it when it does so.

And remember: God created logic.

False. Logic is a human construct based in the manipulation of those pesky linguistic tokens you discounted.

It'd be a shame for us to fail to grasp the basic principles and uses thereof. Shame indeed.

Here, at least, I agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof based on sensory perception? Every night, I feel, see, and otherwise detect things in measurable ways (just look at my EEG) that do not exist.

Indeed, when asleep, you are perceiving something real. The brain waves read by your EEG are indeed real. You are perceiving things, absolutely. A dream state is indeed a real thing. Your perception thereof informs us that there is something there. A dream state. No disagreement here.

How? I don't believe it.

How does the sun affect things outside of itself? Surely you jest. You don't believe that the sun has an effect on external events? Have you ever been warmed by sunlight? Have you ever received a sunburn? Have you ever shielded your eyes from the blinding rays? Donned sunglasses? Have you ever (I think I know the answer to this one) existed upon Earth, which is kept in orbit around the sun by the gravitational attraction thereof? Have you ever experienced a 'year', defined as one complete revolution around the sun? Honestly, I could go on and on.

Only if you define the particular sensory impressions you use as "proof". Given how unreliable our sensory impressions are in many instances, I dispute that as "proof".

Oh, now, mind you, it's not only what our five senses tell us that clue us in to the existence of the sun. I'll quote myself from a short time ago. It's been a few hours, so I can understand it having slipped your mind: "We can measure electromagnetic radiation, heat, diameter, circumference, surface area, solar flare frequency, acceleration due to gravity, luminosity, photospheric composition, etcetera. To reiterate: the sun manifests in such a way as to meaningfully, quantifiable, and undoubtedly distinguish it from 'nothing'. " I'll add to that: "The gravitational pull that keeps us from hurtling into deep space, and the warmth that allows us to exist at all."

On the contrary, it is not irrelevant; rather, it is the ultimate basis of all philosophy. Without linguistic tokens, meaningful abstract thought does not exist.

What are you even going for with this statement, other than a derailing point?

Prove this. (Hint: cogito ergo sum doesn't count as a proof.)

You want me to prove that there are some things that exist and others that do not? You don't accept that there are things that exist and things that do not? Ladies and gentlemen, we have now reached the absolute apex of nihilism.

If the conjecture that some things exist and others do not is incorrect, then everything you can imagine must exist. Unicorns. Fairies. Zeus. Literally everything and anything. I deny this. There is a line between things that exist and those that do not. Rejecting this is simply silly. Rather akin to the four-year-old who incessantly queries her mother as to "why" something is, and then why that thing is, ad infinitum.

Really. Some things exist. Others do not. This is true. Were it not true, then the "neon-green Ozzy Osbourne wearing only mismatched socks" that I've just fabricated in my imagination is indeed currently dancing atop your roof. Because, rejecting the aforementioned statement, there is nothing that doesn't exist.

This is no more obvious to me than is the existence of God. So prove it.

The sun and the existence of God are equally obvious to you? I'll refer you to this link, which you will hopefully understand with more ease than the previous one: Our Sun - Astronomy For Kids - KidsAstronomy.com

Still awaiting your proof.

I'll refer you to Mr. Osbourne, above.

Please note that your mere say-so does not qualify as proof, overwhelming or otherwise.

My mere say-so that the sun exists does not qualify as proof, quite correct. I never said that it did. Proof, however, tends to qualify as proof. Again, the heavily shortened list of ways we know the sun exists: "We can measure electromagnetic radiation, heat, diameter, circumference, surface area, solar flare frequency, acceleration due to gravity, luminosity, photospheric composition, etcetera. To reiterate: the sun manifests in such a way as to meaningfully, quantifiable, and undoubtedly distinguish it from 'nothing'. " I'll add to that: "The gravitational pull that keeps us from hurtling into deep space, and the warmth that allows us to exist at all."

Sadly, a web site URL does not qualify as undeniable proof. Otherwise, I can easily prove God exists by referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The website URL proves nothing, that's correct. However, if you left-click the blue text, it should take you to a webpage that's just positively bursting with scientifically verified, well-substantiated information. Thus distinguishing it starkly from the web page that you've linked to.

Yet how much of what he "knows" is wrong? When modern quantum theory is shown to be deficient and another scientific revolution overthrows current paradigms, his "knowledge" will be seen as a quaint effort of approximation by someone who didn't understand how things really are. What kind of "truth" is that?

See, what you've said there is a common mistake. The idea that "science has been through massive upheavals several times before, and thus is equally likely to go through another such event at any time, possibly disproving much of what we know." Science is not equally likely to have everything it knows turned on its head as it has been in the past. This is due to the fact that science is a process that constantly betters itself, expands in its areas of expertise, and grows exponentially. Again, contrasting starkly with most religious mechanisms.

Yes, I understand that. But that he fails to see the evidence hardly demonstrates that the evidence does not exist.

Failing to see the evidence most certainly does not make that evidence go away. Absolutely true. Really, quite a true statement. I might recommend reading over that statement a few more times, and just letting it sink in.

The evidence has been shared here extensively. Please feel free to review the archives of the various forums.

You command me to "prove it" and demand to see my evidence. But when I kindly ask for yours, you say "go look over there, I'm sure it's around here somewhere." Hardly seems fair. Actually, it seems like what a debate student would call an "evasion".

You have failed to establish any inconsistency, and your demonstration is logically unsound. You would have me believe that since many east Asians believe in acupuncture pressure points and many Haitians believe in voodoo, therefore science is totally dependent on your birthplace and is too inconsistent to believe.

Always so quick to defeat those vicious men of straw, aren't you? First off, acupuncture and voodoo are most emphatically not science. They're dogma and superstition. Secondly, science does not depend on your birthplace. What you learn of science is up to you. Your failure to grasp the facts does not change the reality. So it is with religion. The "right" religion could be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Animism, polytheistic ancient religions, there could be no god at all, ad infinitum. However, your personal beliefs about that do not change what the "true" religion really is (if there is one). However, most religious people believe that they're right about the god question, that their religion is the correct one. But they can't all be right. Thus, the fact that this absolute certainty about the god question stems primarily from geography and nurturing environment is deeply troubling to Dr. Dawkins and many others.

Of course, science itself is riddled with internal contradictions; witness the tension between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics. The two are not compatible and, so far, have not been harmonized. You simply have to pick the tool set you wish to use for a given problem and hope you arrive at a reasonable answer. The best attempt at harmonization, string theory, is utterly useless as a predictive tool.

It's not 'riddled' with internal contradictions. You don't "hope" to arrive at a reasonably answer. If that's what you did in your Chemistry or Physics classes, then you've had some abominable professors. Given that the numbers work out nigh on every single time, it's more than vain "hope". Physics holds true for all we know. As does chemistry. Anatomy. Geology. Meteorology. The computer that you're using to view this does not function because someone hoped it would maybe work out. It's because they utilized what they know about science to construct a marvel of modern technology. Science is the best way to model and explore reality, failing in only a select few instances at the very edge of our current understanding. Even then it's working on these problems, making progress within said problems, and attempting to expand human horizons and knowledge at all times.

Yes, unless Dr. Dawkins is willing to apply the same yardstick to science.

But he is willing to do that! And does! He doesn't support any theories that he hasn't got good reason to support. And even if he didn't apply the same "yardstick" to science, how would that make those factual claims and points more akin to "it's stupid and I dislike it"? It's preposterous to propose that the meaning and veracity of his words changes dependent upon anything else he does. Let his points stand alone, deal with them, instead of evading the prompt with ad hominem attacks upon the man. (And they are ad hominem, as you're accusing him of being a hypocrite.)

You keep saying this, but you provide not a shred of proof.

Reference my earlier discussions about "why some things exist and others don't" and "why the sun exists". I still cannot believe that I had to even write those arguments.

Name-calling does not establish your argument.

Name calling certainly does not establish my argument. Good thing I didn't call you any names! Boy, that's a relief! I said that an idea was ludicrous. That's not "name-calling", my friend. Not in any sense.

Of course it does. So does God.

What? You've just spent several sentences daring me to prove that the sun exists, my friend. And now you're saying "of course it does". Well, I'm glad we've reached that stellar consensus. I've shown you my proofs. I'm still looking for yours. Assuming, that is, that you won't continue to apply your double-standard of evidencing my claims, but not yours.

So far, your logic has failed to provide any proof. I'll be interested to hear it when it does so.

Reference earlier arguments: "why the sun exists" and "why things exist and others don't"."

False. Logic is a human construct based in the manipulation of those pesky linguistic tokens you discounted.

Sounds good to me! (Though I didn't discount language from everything, mind you. Just from relevance to whether or not things exist.)

Here, at least, I agree with you.

Excellent! Please let me know, with clarity and precision, where my logic fails and why. We'll be able to move along quite nicely with that!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

OvisAries

Edited by OvisAries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, when asleep, you are perceiving something real. The brain waves read by your EEG are indeed real.

But I am not perceiving my brain waves. One perceives external phenomena through the process of neural conduction and patterns. Do not confuse cause and effect.

You are perceiving things, absolutely.

Of course I am. But the things I am perceiving are not there. Again, do not confuse cause (brain activity) and effect (perception).

A dream state is indeed a real thing.

Dreamed-of objects, sounds, and odors generally are not real things.

Your perception thereof informs us that there is something there. A dream state.

One does not "perceive" a dream state. It is called a "state" because it is a condition of consciousness. "Perception" refers to internal symbolic models of external reality.

If you fail to keep such fundamental distinctions of language clear, conversation becomes impossible.

How does the sun affect things outside of itself? Surely you jest. You don't believe that the sun has an effect on external events?

Apparently you have not been following the conversation. Let me recap for you.

You said:

The sun and I can be demonstrated clearly and absolutely to have an effect on events outside of ourselves.

I responded:

How? I don't believe it.

Please notice that I did not claim that the sun does not affect things outside of itself. Rather, I quite clearly challenged your ability to demonstrate any such thing. You can give no "clear and absolute" demonstration of those facts, despite your claim. Any demonstration you offer -- any at all -- will be based on sensory perception. That is the best you can possibly do.

Have you ever been warmed by sunlight? Have you ever received a sunburn? Have you ever shielded your eyes from the blinding rays? Donned sunglasses? Have you ever (I think I know the answer to this one) existed upon Earth, which is kept in orbit around the sun by the gravitational attraction thereof? Have you ever experienced a 'year', defined as one complete revolution around the sun? Honestly, I could go on and on.

Indeed you could. But you are utterly missing the point. You can demonstrate none of this, except as an exercise in sensory perception. You utterly miss this clear, obvious point:

Oh, now, mind you, it's not only what our five senses tell us that clue us in to the existence of the sun. I'll quote myself from a short time ago. It's been a few hours, so I can understand it having slipped your mind: "We can measure electromagnetic radiation, heat, diameter, circumference, surface area, solar flare frequency, acceleration due to gravity, luminosity, photospheric composition, etcetera. To reiterate: the sun manifests in such a way as to meaningfully, quantifiable, and undoubtedly distinguish it from 'nothing'. " I'll add to that: "The gravitational pull that keeps us from hurtling into deep space, and the warmth that allows us to exist at all."

How do we measure any such thing? Is the knowledge of those quantities just magically transported into our very beings?

Or do we use sensory input to, say, read a gauge?

It is exactly what our five senses tell us that "clue us in to the existence of the sun." If you claim otherwise -- and you do -- then please give an actual demonstration of some non-sensory method that we can establish your claims.

What are you even going for with this statement, other than a derailing point?

This was in response to what I thought a blindingly obvious point (which, it appears, is not so blindingly obvious to some):

On the contrary, it is not irrelevant; rather, it is the ultimate basis of all philosophy. Without linguistic tokens, meaningful abstract thought does not exist.

Not sure how to break this down any simpler. Perhaps this is an area you haven't really considered before. You ought to do so now. Let me give you my thoughts on the matter, which might serve to clarify things a bit:

Dawkins objects to what he perceives as an illogical construct of religion. But logic -- which, contrary to your assertion, is not created by God, as you suppose, but is a creation of man's mind -- is a method of comparing concepts and ideas with previously established and accepted patterns, then identifying the patterns in the concepts and ideas under consideration as conforming to the previously established patterns, which is called "logical", or violating them, which is called "illogical".

(As a side note, please observe that logic has nothing directly to do with truthfulness; a perfectly logical statement might be patently false, even absurd, while a completely illogical statement might still declare a truth. Logic is purely a form of pattern identification.)

Now, what are the "concepts and ideas" with which we and Dawkins operate logically? They are mental constructs, nothing more. But they are a certain type of mental construct. They are not the memory of an odor or the perception of emotion. They are not a dream or a mental map of a face. They are a sort of description of a set of conditons -- specifically, the set of conditions that define the concept or idea under consideration.

But what form does that description take? It takes the only form it can possibly take; that of linguistic tokens, our only means of manipulating such things. Simply put: infantile (that is, non-linguistic) beings cannot operate above a very primitive logical level. For the purposes of this discussion, non-linguistic beings are incapable of logic. Logic, being as it is a set of rules for manipulating linguistic tokens, necessarily belongs solely to those capable of forming linguistic tokens.

More generally, abstract thought itself is based on linguistic tokens. Animals, for example, may dream about and think of situations or events that are hypothetical; but abstract thought, say thought about moral dilemmas or conversations or ideas of physical models, is not done in pictures. It is done in linguistic tokens. Thus, any efforts in philosophy -- for example, Mr. Dawkins' consideration of the effect of religion -- is of obvious necessity based on the manipulation of these linguistic tokens.

Hope that helps clarify what I thought was an obvious statement.

You want me to prove that there are some things that exist and others that do not?

Yes.

You don't accept that there are things that exist and things that do not?

I don't accept that you are capable of proving any such thing.

Really. Some things exist. Others do not. This is true.

I do not accept the authority of your word. Please demonstrate the factuality of your statement.

The sun and the existence of God are equally obvious to you? I'll refer you to this link, which you will hopefully understand with more ease than the previous one: Our Sun - Astronomy For Kids - KidsAstronomy.com

I thought we already established that URLs did not constitute any sort of proof. Or were you trying to be clever and shame me by referring me to a child's web site?

If you like, I would be happy to compare our levels of knowledge and understanding about various scientific disciplines.

My mere say-so that the sun exists does not qualify as proof, quite correct. I never said that it did.

Yet I keep asking for proof, and you keep giving me your statements of assurance.

Proof, however, tends to qualify as proof.

Indeed it does. Please provide it.

Again, the heavily shortened list of ways we know the sun exists: "We can measure electromagnetic radiation, heat, diameter, circumference, surface area, solar flare frequency, acceleration due to gravity, luminosity, photospheric composition, etcetera.

Only through sensory perception.

To reiterate: the sun manifests in such a way as to meaningfully, quantifiable, and undoubtedly distinguish it from 'nothing'. "

No moreso than God does.

The website URL proves nothing, that's correct. However, if you left-click the blue text, it should take you to a webpage that's just positively bursting with scientifically verified, well-substantiated information.

How do you know it's scientifically verified?

Have you, personally, actually and truly done all of the research to prove atomic theory? Seriously? Or are you taking someone else's word for it?

Thus distinguishing it starkly from the web page that you've linked to.

On the contrary, the page I linked is filled with information that is most certainly well-substantiated and verified (though not "scientifically").

See, what you've said there is a common mistake. The idea that "science has been through massive upheavals several times before, and thus is equally likely to go through another such event at any time, possibly disproving much of what we know."

OvisAries, science is not likely to undergo such an upheaval. Science is guaranteed to undergo such an upheaval. It is unavoidable. Ask any physicist. Ask him how gravitation (aka relativity) and quantum dynamics can be harmonized. He will answer, "They can't, according to our present models."

You might find it interesting to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Somewhat heavy reading, but well worth the effort.

Science is not equally likely to have everything it knows turned on its head as it has been in the past. This is due to the fact that science is a process that constantly betters itself, expands in its areas of expertise, and grows exponentially. Again, contrasting starkly with most religious mechanisms.

This is purely a matter of subjective opinion, and is not provable to any degree. On the contrary, the opposite is far more likely to be demonstrable. Which has changed more in the last thousand years, scientific models or Islam? And which is likely to change more in the next thousand years?

Failing to see the evidence most certainly does not make that evidence go away. Absolutely true. Really, quite a true statement. I might recommend reading over that statement a few more times, and just letting it sink in.

You appear to have forgotten that I made the statement. It came right out of my own mind -- formed by my own manipulation of linguistic tokens, and all for your benefit.

You command me to "prove it" and demand to see my evidence.

You made a claim. I am simply asking you to demonstrate your claim. So far, you haven't.

Always so quick to defeat those vicious men of straw, aren't you?

I don't use straw men.

First off, acupuncture and voodoo are most emphatically not science.

By whose definition? How can you possibly say that?

I can point to half a dozen ideas and practices in modern, 21st-century medicine, and ten times that number in sociology and psychology, that have no more real basis than voodoo. Yet medicine, psychology, and even sociology are considered science.

If the voodoo man says his chant and your sickness goes away, and then he says his chant and someone else's sickness goes away, then that is evidence that his chant made the sickness go away. You may believe that your anti-post hoc attitude makes you superior to him, but in fact, that is exactly the way much modern science is conducted.

It's not 'riddled' with internal contradictions. You don't "hope" to arrive at a reasonably answer. If that's what you did in your Chemistry or Physics classes, then you've had some abominable professors.

OvisAries, your profile says you're 24 years old, so I will chalk up your above statements to the naive ignorance of youth. Have you had any college physics past the first couple of years? Did you take anything past a junior-level class in relativity and quantum mechanics? Because if you had, you would know how false your statements are. You don't even have to be a grad student in physics, much less a practicing physicist, to know that the standard models are incompatible with each other.

If you are working with high accelerations or moving through gravity fields, you must use relativity to get a useful answer. If you are working with subatomic particles or individual photons, you must use quantum mechanics to get a useful answer. And if you are working with subatomic particles traveling at relativistic velocities -- a not uncommon situation -- the you must very carefully pick and choose which models you use, and you pretty much have to cobble them together until you find an answer that agrees with experiment. There is no integrated monolithic standard model that covers all the bases. Such a model simply does not exist. That you think it does indicates that you are being very lazy in your thinking, or that you are being intentionally stubborn and refusing to acknowledge what you know perfectly well to be true, or that you don't really understand physics very well.

Given that the numbers work out nigh on every single time, it's more than vain "hope".

But it's not given, OvisAries. It's false. The numbers don't work out. If you are a physicist, you know this to be true (and shame on you for pretending otherwise). If you are not a physicist, then don't take my word for it -- go to your nearest graduate physics department and ask them.

Physics holds true for all we know.

If you truly believe this, you are too ignorant to be talking about this topic. You really need to go educate yourself first.

Science is the best way to model and explore reality

Prove this. Reality includes my love for my wife and my duties to God. Please explain to me how science best models my love for my wife and my duties to God, and how the scientific models of these things are quantifiably better than my religion's models.

Excellent! Please let me know, with clarity and precision, where my logic fails and why. We'll be able to move along quite nicely with that!

Very good. I've done my part. Now let's move the conversation along. Please respond to my requests for evidence, which you have so confidently asserted that you are able to provide.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Alright, hold on. Just stop.

I've discovered the problem.

It is that our premises are different.

You've dismissed all evidence based upon sensory perception. Even 'reading a gauge' on a tool that we've built qualifies as sensory perception and therefore is unreliable, in your view.

At that point, nobody can know anything. Ever. Any standards that literally any person in human history has used as "evidence" have been based upon sensory perception. Dismissing sensory perception dismisses reality.

Then again, maybe you're okay with that.

How can you know anything whatsoever, with that thinking?

Did you read a book about something? "Too bad, 'sensory perception'! What you've read is unreliable and can't be accepted as evidence for any claim you might make. Just like reading a gauge is invalid for the same reason."

How can you claim to know anything about physics? You likely learned it from a book. "You read the book with your eyes? Sensory perception! Or did you hear a professor lecture on it? Sensory perception! Sorry, invalid!"

Even if you went out and did all of the research that makes up modern physics from the ground up, even if you went out and did it all personally, you'd still have nothing according to your premise of "sensory perception is unreliable and therefore cannot be used as evidence". Any and every observation, experiment, and interaction with the world that you would have used to personally build the entirety of modern physics would still net you nothing under your premise, because it inevitably regresses to sensory perception. And you "dispute that as "proof"", therefore rejecting all proof that has ever, and I mean ever been given, for any and every truth claim about reality.

Either you accept that basic premise of human existence, that sensory perception is a valid basis for knowledge and proof, or you dismiss reality in all of your nihilistic splendour.

You seem to have elected for the latter.

The notion that you're a 40-something college educated man with children instills me with a truly profound sadness.

Hope you had happy holidays.

God Bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

never saw anyone work so hard to miss the point before.....unfortunate.

Who missed the point? Vort or Ovis?

I was quite impressed with Ovis. I like religious people who "get" where Dawkins and his crew are coming from. I'm not a big fan of Hitchens, though, may he rest in peace. I like Dawkins' delivery better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh*

Let me sum things up if I can.

If sensory perception is acceptable as proof, I have felt the Holy Ghost.

If it is only experimental basis that provides proof, there have been millions of people who have experimented and felt the Holy Ghost in a similar manner.

If sensory perception through only the eyes is required, we have the experimental basis of several men who have seen God.

And talked with and heard God.

And felt His hands, feet, and side.

Not so sure that anyone has smelled or tasted the Savior, so I would concede those points.

If the witness of others cannot be trusted, you'd have a long road ahead in trying to come up with the scientific measuring tools on your own to prove the existence of the sun. Or wind. Or other planets. Etc.

I, on the other hand, have done my own experiment. I would urge everyone to do the same. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess: I appreciate the compliment. I'm glad there are others out there who see the value in being well-versed in both sides of any argument :)

p.s. I like Dawkins better too!

Colirio:

Forgive me, I did not mean to imply that if we sense something, it is therefore proven. As Vort earlier pointed out, we often sense things that aren't really there.

Hallucinations. Dreams. Etcetera. I completely agree that our senses can be misleading.

However:

Sensory perception is the way in which the world lets us know it's there. In making well-studied observations and testing hypotheses, we must use our senses. Our sensations alone do not prove anything. But they do enable us to prove things, by interacting with and studying the world around us.

And so my point is thus: Not everything we sense is proven. We can indeed sense in the absence of a stimulus, etc. But we must use sensation in order to prove anything, to know anything, to understand anything. Therefore, denying the validity of sensory perception is to deny reality, to deny existence, and to deny all that has been known, is known, and ever will be known.

I apologize for the misconception.

Edited by OvisAries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, hold on. Just stop.

I've discovered the problem.

It is that our premises are different.

You've dismissed all evidence based upon sensory perception. Even 'reading a gauge' on a tool that we've built qualifies as sensory perception and therefore is unreliable, in your view.

Not so. You have utterly missed the point of my objections, regardless of how carefully I tried to phrase them. Please reread what I wrote to gain an understanding of what I was saying.

How can you know anything whatsoever, with that thinking?

Indeed, this is the point I was making. When Dawkins or Hitchens or OvisAries makes a judgment about existential phenomena, it is then incumbent upon Dawkins or Hitchens or OvisAries to define and defend their criteria.

The notion that you're a 40-something college educated man with children instills me with a truly profound sadness.

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

Hope you had happy holidays.

What, me and those children whose existence saddens you? How special.

God Bless.

How? By giving me more children to make you sadder?

Bye, OvisAries. I hope never to have the misfortune of interacting with you again, in any form, online or in the flesh.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh.

To my recollection (and by 'my recollection' I mean 'what you said verbatim') on 12-23-2011 at 8:31AM, regarding our knowledge of the sun:

"Given how unreliable our sensory impressions are in many instances, I dispute that as "proof"."

And then on 12-24-2011, 10:26 AM, regarding the existence of the sun:

"Any demonstration you offer -- any at all -- will be based on sensory perception. That is the best you can possibly do."

And in the same post, in regard to the notion of scientific measurements:

"How do we measure any such thing? Is the knowledge of those quantities just magically transported into our very beings? Or do we use sensory input to, say, read a gauge?"

And again in the same post, in response to me listing things we know of the sun:

"Only through sensory perception."

Time and time again, you dismiss sensory perception as a viable base upon which to claim that things are known. Meaning that time and time again, you have dismissed all that has ever been and will ever be known.

I operate on the basis that our only method of knowing the world (sensory perception) is that upon which we must base all knowledge. If you stand by your earlier comments, then you clearly believe otherwise. And if that is the case, then we have found the root of our communication difficulties.

Onwards.

Indeed, this is the point I was making. When Dawkins or Hitchens or OvisAries makes a judgment about existential phenomena, it is then incumbent upon Dawkins or Hitchens or OvisAries to define and defend their criteria.

Just as you don't believe in unicorns, Dawkins and Hitchens don't believe in God. And the three of you reach that conclusion in the same fashion: None of you have been presented with any reason that you deem worthy to consider the existence of God (for Hitchens and Dawkins) or Unicorns (for you) as fact.

Please notice: the onus is not on you to disprove the existence of unicorns. Similarly, the onus is not on Dawkins or Hitchens to disprove the existence of God.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. This is something you have seemed to misunderstand.

What, me and those children whose existence saddens you? How special.

I have no problem with your children. Evidently, I can't even wish you 'happy holidays' without you throwing it in my face. That's really not very Christ-like.

Also, your comment is misdirected in any case. If you're going to be indignant, at least read what you're being indignant about. Again: my comment expressed no issue with your children. Merely with the notion of an adult man whose exponentially growing "facts that cease to exist when I choose to ignore them" folder is on public display.

How? By giving me more children to make you sadder?

I'm only trying to be friendly. We're all god's children, whether we agree on certain things or not. Be my brother, Vort, as all men are brothers.

Bye, OvisAries. I hope never to have the misfortune of interacting with you again, in any form, online or in the flesh.

So judgmental, such vitriol. There's no need to be nasty, Vort. I'll leave this here for your reference:

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

I would say 'God Bless', but you might take offense.

Ovis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We believe what we wish to believe in religion, science or anything else. If I chose not to believe either Vort or Ov then it doesnt matter what they say. If I believe the world is my own creation then behold it is. Anyones debate or jabber on the subject is just for my entertainment since I know I created you as a hobby. I have set the boundries of my belief and you can say what you want. My beliefs will remain.

You may convince me I am wrong but it will be due to my feelings on what you say, not whether it is correct or incorrect.

Of course you are free to think I am wrong but that is just more entertainment for me if I refuse to feel your argument for separate existence is worthwhile considering.

Everything we believe is based on feeling and it doesnt matter if its science, religion or philosophy. Of course most people will give consideration to the views and beliefs of others if they are convincing or have convinced enough people to bring peer pressure to bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I believe the world is my own creation then behold it is. Anyones debate or jabber on the subject is just for my entertainment since I know I created you as a hobby.

What.*

I'm speechless.

Posted Image

*(It was a conscious decision to place a period in lieu of a question mark. It's less a question and more of a statement of utter shock.)

Edited by OvisAries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share