[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. > > We may hold him in our regard but at this time he is not > a member in good standing with our group.
In the "world" category, don't forget Sam Harris (who is American, I believe) and Christopher Hitchens who's accent gives his British nationality away. Why is Dawkins not in good standing with the MOQists? I should think that anyone who quotes RMP would be applauded here. [Krimel]: > Russell's statements don't impugn the character or ideas of anyone > in particular. How is it ad hominem? [snip] > Rather than ad hominem you might be referring to Russell's account > of the logical fallacy of argument from authority. He is impugning the intellectual capacity of believers by characterizing their faith as "nonsense". Those who speak with authority should exercise caution about what they call nonsense, especially when they have no proof to the contrary. > 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. It is a given in philosophy that metaphysical hypotheses are not provable. The "nonsense" is believing that they ought to be, or that objective knowledge reveals ultimate truth. A transcendent source is by definition beyond the bounds of relational (space/time) logic. > 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. Priests, prophets, and tyrants bring pressure to bear on beliefs; philosophers do not. Again, we cannot reason our way to ultimate truth. Experiential truth is relative. [Ham, previously]: > I'd like 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? Do you really want to engage me in a debate about a primary cause? If so, then let's start with your creation theory: > I, myself would refer you to the MindWalk explanation that there is > nothing there, only the probability of something. Something comes > 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. Your theory makes probability the primary cause, which is illogical. Probability cannot be a first cause. Rather, it is a deterministic approximation of relational events, such as the probability that A will cause B. It is contingent upon the existence of A. In the absence of an existent (A) there can be no event, and in the absence of events, nothing happens. Without potentiality there can be nothing. Therefore, the series of events that we call existence is initiated by Potentiality--specifically, the potential to actualize existence. This is how I define Essence. Just as Pirsig theorized that Quality is pre-intellectual, I've theorized that Essence is pre-existential. By that I mean Essence is neither a contingency of something else nor it is subject to the conditions of relational cause-and-effects. I posit Essence as absolute and uncreated. While that may be only a tempest over a teapot to you, it is a reasonable hypothesis to support a differentiated universe in transition. For me, it is 100% probable that absolute potentiality is the "primary cause". The means by which potentiality gives rise to actuality has been theorized by Hegel and Heidegger, but it's too involved to get into here. I'm simply making the case that, for those of us who believe that nothing comes from nothing, there is a metaphysical explanation for existence. Regards, Ham 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/
