Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:01 pm
And therefore, Atheists know probabilistically that there is a God.

Oh dear, does that mean I need to make more effort?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:01 pm Atheists know probabilistically that there is a God.

Whut?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:01 pm Atheists know probabilistically that there is a God.

Whut?

I know; it came as quite a shock to me, too.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:12 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:01 pm Atheists know probabilistically that there is a God.

Whut?

I know; it came as quite a shock to me, too.

I am sometimes surprised to find out about the things that some fanatic knows that I know without my knowing about my knowing of them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:08 am Pseudo-objective morality is a form of subjective morality,

Yes...subjective, and arbitrary, and authoritarian and indoctrinatory. It's all of that, not just subjective.

...if it gets established by worldwide consensus.

Nothing ever does.

I didn't say programming morality at all. I said increasing the natural intelligence and empathy of humans through gene engineering...

Think about it: it's exactly the same thing. the "gene engineers" or their bosses, have to know already what "increased empathy" would look like...what things and values they want their subjects to move toward. If they don't know, they can't "engineer" it at all.

So they already know. They've decided. That means that either they are already the "good" people, or that they are merely authoritarian meddlers. But without a code to judge which they are beforehand, we don't know if we're handing ourselves or our children over to therapists or despots. We can't tell, because we lack the objective morality that would let us estimate that. And subjectivists tell us we can't have any certain standards by which to judge, at all. So we're handing ourselves over to technocratic manipulators, who may or may not be good people who will do the right thing, and we have no way of knowing whether that's good or not.

And judging by history, the chances that a set of technocrats are universally good people is practically zero.

So no, that's a terrible idea.

That's generally not how empathy works, aside from tribal morality, values aren't in the genes.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:01 pm
And therefore, Atheists know probabilistically that there is a God.

Oh dear, does that mean I need to make more effort?

Well, an Atheist's going to be in a bit of a pickle, if he thinks he need certain knowledge to bolster his Atheism. He'd actually be safer sticking with probabilistic claims. But the reason that's hard for an Atheist to accept is that he wants desperately to say that other people shouldn't believe in God either...he doesn't want to stop at saying merely "I don't believe;" yet as soon as he implies he has any certainty, he becomes vulnerable to an asking of evidence...which he doesn't want to have to provide.

So it's tough being an Atheist. It's all about holding a line between claiming certain knowledge when attacking, and then reverting to something less certain as soon as he's asked for evidence...or even insisting he owes none at all, ever...at the cost of losing his point, of course. He's got to keep people thinking his attacks are certain, and stop them from noticing his defenses are vacuous and vulnerable.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:08 am Pseudo-objective morality is a form of subjective morality,

Yes...subjective, and arbitrary, and authoritarian and indoctrinatory. It's all of that, not just subjective.

...if it gets established by worldwide consensus.

Nothing ever does.

I didn't say programming morality at all. I said increasing the natural intelligence and empathy of humans through gene engineering...

Think about it: it's exactly the same thing. the "gene engineers" or their bosses, have to know already what "increased empathy" would look like...what things and values they want their subjects to move toward. If they don't know, they can't "engineer" it at all.

So they already know. They've decided. That means that either they are already the "good" people, or that they are merely authoritarian meddlers. But without a code to judge which they are beforehand, we don't know if we're handing ourselves or our children over to therapists or despots. We can't tell, because we lack the objective morality that would let us estimate that. And subjectivists tell us we can't have any certain standards by which to judge, at all. So we're handing ourselves over to technocratic manipulators, who may or may not be good people who will do the right thing, and we have no way of knowing whether that's good or not.

And judging by history, the chances that a set of technocrats are universally good people is practically zero.

So no, that's a terrible idea.

That's generally not how empathy works, aside from tribal morality, values aren't in the genes.

Then what's the use of "gene engineering" to fix the problem of morality? If the values are not there, in the genes, you can't fix them that way, can you?

As for empathy, I recommend Paul Bloom's book, "Against Empathy." He points out pretty well why it's a bad source of orientation for morality. He doesn't catch all the problems, but he catches a good many of them. Bottom line: empathy is too often misguided.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:32 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:01 pm
And therefore, Atheists know probabilistically that there is a God.

Oh dear, does that mean I need to make more effort?

Well, an Atheist's going to be in a bit of a pickle, if he thinks he need certain knowledge to bolster his Atheism.

It's really not as complicated as you seem to think. When you are told something wildly implausible, you just tend not to believe it; end on story.

He'd actually be safer sticking with probabilistic claims.

I don't know what you mean by that, so I'm not yet in a position to say why it doesn't make sense.

But the reason that's hard for an Atheist to accept is that he wants desperately to say that other people shouldn't believe in God either.

I'm an atheist and I don't give a damn what anyone believes. What I do give a damn about is when they want to start changing things for the rest of us because of their beliefs.

he doesn't want to stop at saying merely "I don't believe;" yet as soon as he implies he has any certainty, he becomes vulnerable to an asking of evidence...which he doesn't want to have to provide.

Well I'm pretty certain there is no such thing as God, but as that puts me under no obligation to justify that certainty to anybody, what do I have to feel vulnerable about? Besides, what evidence could you possibly produce for the nonexistence of something. What's your evidence that Santa doesn't exist?

So it's tough being an Atheist.

Honestly, it isn't, and you have that straight from the horse's mouth.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:35 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:43 pm
Yes...subjective, and arbitrary, and authoritarian and indoctrinatory. It's all of that, not just subjective.

Nothing ever does.


Think about it: it's exactly the same thing. the "gene engineers" or their bosses, have to know already what "increased empathy" would look like...what things and values they want their subjects to move toward. If they don't know, they can't "engineer" it at all.

So they already know. They've decided. That means that either they are already the "good" people, or that they are merely authoritarian meddlers. But without a code to judge which they are beforehand, we don't know if we're handing ourselves or our children over to therapists or despots. We can't tell, because we lack the objective morality that would let us estimate that. And subjectivists tell us we can't have any certain standards by which to judge, at all. So we're handing ourselves over to technocratic manipulators, who may or may not be good people who will do the right thing, and we have no way of knowing whether that's good or not.

And judging by history, the chances that a set of technocrats are universally good people is practically zero.

So no, that's a terrible idea.

That's generally not how empathy works, aside from tribal morality, values aren't in the genes.

Then what's the use of "gene engineering" to fix the problem of morality? If the values are not there, in the genes, you can't fix them that way, can you?

As for empathy, I recommend Paul Bloom's book, "Against Empathy." He points out pretty well why it's a bad source of orientation for morality. He doesn't catch all the problems, but he catches a good many of them. Bottom line: empathy is too often misguided.

First you objected because you thought enhancing empathy fixes values, now you object because it doesn't?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:32 pm Well, an Atheist's going to be in a bit of a pickle, if he thinks he need certain knowledge to bolster his Atheism. He'd actually be safer sticking with probabilistic claims. But the reason that's hard for an Atheist to accept is that he wants desperately to say that other people shouldn't believe in God either...he doesn't want to stop at saying merely "I don't believe;" yet as soon as he implies he has any certainty, he becomes vulnerable to an asking of evidence...which he doesn't want to have to provide.

This ideal atheist you've cooked up is very helpfully stupid at key moments, you are lucky indeed that he is your foe.

I'm 0.000000000000000000000000773% sure that God is real and is a big handkerchief, so I'm a handkerchief-ist like Douglas.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:08 pm When you are told something wildly implausible, you just tend not to believe it; end on story.

But it's only a "tend." That's probabilistic, not certain.

And "implausiblity" depends on evidence, because unless you know what evidence you should expect to find, it's impossible to say that it's missing. What evidence for God would an Atheist have good reason to expect, that he fails to find and thus judges the existence of God "implausible"?

He'd actually be safer sticking with probabilistic claims.

I don't know what you mean by that, so I'm not yet in a position to say why it doesn't make sense.

It just means he'd be smarter to say, "It seems improbable to me that there's a God," rather than to either say or imply, "I'm certain there's no God." The latter's too vulnerable a claim.

But the reason that's hard for an Atheist to accept is that he wants desperately to say that other people shouldn't believe in God either.

I'm an atheist and I don't give a damn what anyone believes.

That's great.

Well I'm pretty certain there is no such thing as God,

That makes you a probabilistic arguer, then. "Pretty certain" means you leave reason for doubt.

People can still ask you, though, "What makes you 'pretty certain,' and then assess your reasonableness based on that.

Besides, what evidence could you possibly produce for the nonexistence of something.

Ah, now you've got the problem! And Atheist can NEVER show he's right. By contrast, how many things would a Theist have to show, in order to prove himself right? How many (genuine, of course -- we would have to reject any ersatz ones) epiphanies would he have to produce, or how many incarnations, how many Creations, or how many partings of the Red Sea, how many Messiahs, or how many genuine revelations, how many voices from the heavens, how many genuinely answered prayers, how many healings, how many divine interventions in situations, how many resurrections, or how many miracles, how many genuine objective moral values...or how many solid evidences of any kind?

Answer: one. If a Theist produces one solid bit of evidence of any kind that was reasonable for a reasoning person to accept, he wins; because any God, any God at all, anytime, disproves Atheism utterly. Just one.

But the Atheist can never win. He needs to show that there is not, and never was a Supreme Being, not here or in any corner of the universe, or outside of it and time itself, or in any persons or things, or in any culture's history, or in science or logic or anything at all.

That's why the Atheist cannot prove his negative claim. And an honest Atheist has to do what you are doing, and admit his argument is based on a weak probability calculation that convinces only himself...and slide over to agnosticism, where he belongs. Unless he wishes to remain irrational.

So it's tough being an Atheist.

Honestly, it isn't, and you have that straight from the horses mouth.

Well, one can believe rather easily in a thing if one's chosen standards of evidence are zero, of course. But the minute the Atheist claims his view is rational, evidentiary, logical or obligatory for anybody else, he's in trouble, rationally speaking.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:32 pm Well, an Atheist's going to be in a bit of a pickle, if he thinks he need certain knowledge to bolster his Atheism. He'd actually be safer sticking with probabilistic claims. But the reason that's hard for an Atheist to accept is that he wants desperately to say that other people shouldn't believe in God either...he doesn't want to stop at saying merely "I don't believe;" yet as soon as he implies he has any certainty, he becomes vulnerable to an asking of evidence...which he doesn't want to have to provide.

This ideal atheist you've cooked up is very helpfully stupid at key moments, you are lucky indeed that he is your foe.

Maybe you should explain to him why he's stupid. I've been trying, but he's not listening.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:18 pm First you objected because you thought enhancing empathy fixes values, now you object because it doesn't?

I said no such thing as "empathy fixes values." You'll have to show me where you think that comes from.

Empathy is merely an emotion. It can be directed toward good objects and people, or toward bad ones. Look at how many love letters mass murderers have received from admirers: empathetic, no doubt...but stupid, for sure, and very plausibly evil as well. There are some things that are not deserving of our empathy, and toward which, in fact, if we have empathy, then we ourselves become evil.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:18 pm First you objected because you thought enhancing empathy fixes values, now you object because it doesn't?

I said no such thing as "empathy fixes values." You'll have to show me where you think that comes from.

Empathy is merely an emotion. It can be directed toward good objects and people, or toward bad ones. Look at how many love letters mass murderers have received from admirers: empathetic, no doubt...but stupid, for sure, and very plausibly evil as well. There are some things that are not deserving of our empathy, and toward which, in fact, if we have empathy, then we ourselves become evil.

Empathy is generally a good thing and lack of it is generally a form of evil. You must be getting really desperate that you're focusing on pathologies like love letters from sick women, and generalizing it to the whole issue of empathy. Btw I did say that humans also need a 20-30 points IQ raise.