[Ham] Dawkins may be British, but the Arizona U. conference for which this article
is a promotion is in America, and his 'God Delusion" is a best-seller in the U.S. I think he is the most ardent spokesman for atheist in this country. [Krimel] OMFG, a simple, "oh, yeah I was confused," would do. Dennent or Weinberg might qualify as America's leading atheists, as they are ours. Dawkins is one of the world's leading atheists but the fact that he is speaking in Arizona does not make him 'our' leading atheists any more that it makes him Arizona's leading atheist. He is a guest in our home. We may hold him in our regard but at this time he is not member in good standing with our group. Some may welcome him, others may not, but neither he nor we has mentioned adoption. > "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china > teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be > able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the > teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. B > But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be > disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to > doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, > the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as > the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at > school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of > eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist > in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." >--Bertrand Russell, 1952 [Ham] Ah, yes. Another British intellectual with an ad hominen argument for atheism! I needn't point out that nowhere in this quotation is there evidence that contradicts a transcendent source. No one can disprove the assertion that there's a teapot between Earth and Mars. Does that make the assertion untrue? God is affirmed in ancient books, taught as sacred truth, and instilled in the minds of children. Does that make it untrue? Even the esteemed mathematician would not make such an assertion. [Krimel] Russell's statements don't impugn the character or ideas of anyone in particular. How is it ad hominem? Russell is inviting us to consider the degree of probability we should assign to unverifiable theories or the highly improbable. He is talking about a teapot. If you think your transcendent source resembles Russell's teapot then we are, for once, in agreement. But what if, instead of a teapot, he said, Darth Vader or an alien like him, is on the other side of Mars. Perhaps building weapons from minerals mined from asteroids; fueled by icebergs of methane imported from the gas giants. I suspect such an alien could gather a sizable following without much marketing around here. He is invisible, his motivation unknowable. That unknown can generate both fear or hope. Just the potential, either way, is likely to convince some. I hold open some probability of teapots and aliens but they do not haunt my dreams. I confess to a bit of asteroid-phobia; but I suspect that it runs in the family. We hear arguments from fear coming from everywhere. Asteroids really do make my palms sweat, because I have weighed enough evidence to assign a pretty high probability to their existence. They seem both real and threatening. The Alien Armada? I can not say how much evidence it would take to convince me to buy into that. I do know this: it's more than I've seen. The teapot? I can use Photoshop too. I would have to be physically transported to within arm's length of the pot in situ. Do I really look like I just woke up? Rather than ad hominem you might be referring to Russell's account of the logical fallacy of argument from authority. Here he is noting that pressure to adopt a belief has nothing to do with the validity of the claims. Any number of factors contribute to the beliefs we hold and how dearly we hold them. Reason is powerful, often compelling but not required. Fallacious agreements may convince some but not through reason. If an ancient scroll speaking of teapot planetoids was uncovered. I might not need to be arms length of the spacepot, but I would have to have it in sight. The word of a God might not shake my doubt about a crackpot's teapot; but if my friend's cousin told me she was feeding an off world visitor in her closet I might start stocking canned goods. We already have in place detectors that could easily convince me that a big rock is on its way. As for your transcendent force; I would rank it somewhere between ET and Russell's teapot. Since your invisible force can have no impact on what happens now and what happens next, I would put it just this side of the teapot. [Ham] I'd to see Russell's brief on the maxim 'ex nihilo nihil fit'. Perchance you can find a quote on that bit of logic? [Krimel] I don't know; but I would look for something along the lines of "from whence comes then, this transcendent force? I, myself would refer you to the MindWalk explanation that there is nothing there, only the probability of something. Something come from nothing all the time. The probability of something staying, approaches 100% at our scale. At a certain point however, it's all just forces winking off and on, each according to it's probability. This video might provide some perceptive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBsOeLcUARw Zoom in, Zoom Out, Refocus! Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
