CFI Forums

Chris Hedges - I Don’t Believe in Atheists (merged)

2008-05-02T16:25:12-05:00

Chris Hedges is a journalist and author who focuses on American and Middle Eastern politics and society. He is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City and a Lecturer in the Council of the Humanities and the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, where he spent fifteen years. He is the author of What Every Person Should Know About War and American Fascists. His newest book is I Don’t Believe in Atheists.

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, acclaimed foreign correspondent Christ Hedges shares his criticism of the New Atheists, calling them “fundamentalists” in their own right. He responds to their account of the origins of Islamic religious extremism, and he accuses the New Atheists of racism. He explains his view that the New Atheists are proponents of the Neo-conservative agenda and how the American Left does advance secular values in the Muslim world. He also criticizes what he calls the “utopianism” of the New Atheists, detailing his skepticism about moral progress for humanity.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

Faster than the speed of light?

2007-10-15T09:42:15-05:00

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Right? I imagine sitting on the sun and discovering that in about one minute the sun will explode and disappear. Now, it takes about eight minutes for light to travel to earth, and nothing, not even gravity, can move at a greater speed. This gives my fellow humans a little over eight minutes to act (eight minutes + the several seconds before the explosion). Can I warn them? No, I can’t. Any kind of communication would take more than eight minutes. But! What if I had a pencil long enough to reach the earth? (Already in place, ready to start writing.) The humans can read my message as I am writing it. Would this work? Could we say that in this case a thought would travel faster than the speed of light?

Are there moral facts? A debate about moral/ethical realism

2007-12-27T07:32:15-05:00

This is honoring a request. I introduced myself, and suddenly there was a long thread on ethics.

Here is the outline of a case for moral realism, lifted bodily from the thread ‘Interested Philosopher’. Pardon the outline format and the rather intense abbreviation; changing both would only make the post even longer. Nothing here is excitingly new, but then ‘new and improved’ is for cereals and mini-vans, not necessarily arguments.

There’s another case to be made by taking apart Hume’s argument - his arg makes moral facts irrelevant, it is not a direct attack on their existence. But that’s not in this post. I won’t spend time altering some of the unclear parts, and the abbreviations are pretty obvious in context.

B. Generic arguments mostly con about moral facts (pp118-):

1. The ‘queerness’ of morals as facts:
a. The items and actions in a torture-chamber – unquestionably ‘facts’;
b. vs the wrongness of the actions – a rather different kind of fact:
i. it’s not a thing, it’s not quite measurable
(how heavy is wrong?
Does it make sense to ‘count’ the wrongs in the torture-chamber?)
ii. This is the bad consequence of accepting the idea
that ‘oughts’ cannot be turned into merely a set of ‘izzes’
– See ch IV, pp103ff, ‘The Naturalistic Fallacy’
w/ the args of Hume (18th c.) & G.E. Moore (19/20th c.)
- those args show that moral ‘oughts’ are independent of other facts;
- they are not the usual kind of facts.
- now in V we are asking if that independence rather
prevents them from being really a kind of fact at all.

2. Informal evidence for moral facts:
a. Arg. 1:
i. Morals do seem to be discoverable,
and beliefs about them seem stable, once discovered;
ii. Other fields where things are discoverable and stable
have facts to be discovered, & facts to stabilize beliefs about them;
iii. Therefore, morality is also rests upon a base of facts.

b. Arg. 2:
i. Judging things as good, better than, best of
implies a standard – some facts – by which one can evaluate the things.
ii. We also make reasonable-seeming judgments about morals;
iii. So, there are moral facts, that make such judgments intelligible.

3. Arguments against moral facts:

a. 1st, recall the ‘queerness’ of morals if you think of them as facts, from 1. above.
One way to support moral facts is to claim one can observe morals
–with a non-physical, non-sensed moral intuition.

b. Con Arg. 1:
i. We cannot, and never have, observed such a ‘power’ or ‘faculty’,
Altho’ we can observe our sense-faculties: eyes to see, our ears to hear etc.
ii. So the only way we ‘know’ we have a faculty of moral intuition
is by pro Arg.1 – but there’s no way to independently confirm
the existence of that power apart from that little argument.

iii. possible Reply:
Well, fine, we cannot independently confirm it
But all that means is that
pro Arg.1 is ‘demoted’ from a certain arg. to a probable or likely arg.
Specifically, it’s an arg by analogy.

Another arg by analogy:
I have toothaches, and make certain sounds and motions;
I observe someone doing the exact same sounds and motions;
It’s probable or likely that that someone’s got a toothache –
- but, I can’t independently confirm that, either.
(he might lie, he’s across the hall & I can’t talk to him, etc.)

c. Con Arg. 2:
i. There are many other ways to describe why we moralize
than by claiming there are moral facts;
ii. And given con arg.1, we have no independent evidence they exist:
iii. Therefore, to claim ‘Morals are facts’
is superfluous, extra, and a bit of a bad fix – it’s ad hoc.
(Latin, ‘just for this’ – it was made up just to prove your point,
not b/c it’s reasonable, or the most likely expln)

iv. Possible Reply:
So what if it seems like positing ghosts?
As we shall see later in the chapter, all the other, non-realist theories
have massive problems of their own.
So, the non-realist really has given us a diff kind of problem:
Wh. is worse?
Entities that we have trouble confirming independently?
Or theories with massive metaphysical or logical problems?
Most ordinary people, it seems, allow for unseeable entities;
so moral facts are still plausible, if not yet proven likely.
Besides,
‘We can’t see moral facts’
begs the question
‘Can we observe them?’
It doesn’t seem weird to just know something’s going wrong
when we look at a torture
(Ex: I’ve never seen a torture before,
yet I’m sure I’d know it’s wrong the minute I saw it taking place)

d. Con Arg. 3:
This will sound like con arg 1, but it’s concentrating
not on (failing to) observe this mysterious ‘power of moral intuition’
But on what would the independent evidence look like
to distinguish fact-based belief from fictional, mere belief?
i. OK, assume there’s this wonderful moral intuition – how could it work?
ii. We cannot observe any moral facts, different from other facts;
iii. And when we do change our minds about some moral belief,
often it’s b/c of some mere fact
(ex: realizing a living man is being hanged, rather than ‘only a thief’
iv. So therefore, just drop the idea of ‘separate’ moral facts.

v. Possible Reply:
This con arg continues to assume that non-physical intuition is absurd;
Well, many, many people do suggest they can observe (im)moral acts,
although that doesn’t prove decisively that there are facts,
It makes moral facts as likely as that we have ‘minds’ and that we’re ‘conscious’ and that 2+2=4 independently of physical things.
Is the moral non-realist just attacking every non-physical object?
That’s not strictly a moral theory position – that’s a metaphysical assumption – and a diff subject – it seems we can talk about moral facts (or not)
w/o having to know if
physicalism, or monistic materialism,
or philosophical naturalism is true.

e. Con Arg. 4:
i. While con arg. 2 complained that positing moral facts seems weird,
this arg says it isn’t needed – it isn’t necessary,
ii. After all, there are other ways to explain your actions.
(Ex: I think Hitler was depraved – but b/c I was brought up to believe it;
I don’t need to posit a moral fact about his depravity.)

iii. Possible Reply:
‘Need’ is a funny term here –
I’m looking for what is so, not for how ‘thin’ my metaphysics can be constructed.
I wasn’t saying that one ‘needs’ morals
because no other explanation might explain actions,
Rather, I was looking for the true explanation,
not the ‘thinnest’ or ‘least metaphysically heavy’
or ‘least committed’ explanation.
That suggests searching for the truth is like
conserving water and food in the desert.
Requiring ‘simplest’ or ‘thinnest’ or ‘metaphysically lightest’ theories
is an absurd requirement.
NB: Your instructor really has a grudge against ‘Ockham’s Razor’

f. Supervenience.
(We shall not study this new twist on reducing moral ‘oughts’ to ‘izzes’. In your instructor’s opinion, none of the arguments about supervenience do much more than tell us about a ‘necessary condition’ for acting morally, which is accepted by many moral realists. Like this analogy: yes, containers are necessary for coffee-drinking, but coffee does not ‘supervene’ on coffee-cups. In fact it’s the other way around; we want coffee, and that requires getting a cup. Coffee isn’t *derived* from cups, even tho’ the coffee must ‘come from’ some cup or other; neither are morals ‘derived’ from scientific facts. Maybe next semester we’ll argue this in detail.)

Virginia tech gun dealer visits campus to sell guns-What do you think?

2008-04-24T16:30:26-05:00

I just came across this story. I heard the dealer speaking on the news and making a comment to that “If there was even one student in that classroom with a gun at least half of the deaths could have been stopped”. I couldn’t believe my ears. This guy sold the guns to the madman that killed all these kids and his solution is to put more guns in kids hands.

Its only my opinion, but even if his estimate is true, you would have to arm hundreds of kids on each of the three thousand campuses across the country to have saved a dozen or so lives lost to a madman once every couple of years. It seems to me that with hundreds of thousands of newly armed college students across the country we are going to have more than a few deaths from accidents and roommate or girlfreind issues that escalate from a heated debate to a gunbattle. College students aren’t exactly known for their sober restraint.

I realize this is a hot button issue with many groups, but I don’t see how any rational thinking individual can honestly believe that putting more guns in the hands of college students is the solution to this sort of on campus violence.

Comments?

vaccinations/immunization

2007-02-14T07:42:41-05:00

My wife is pregnant and it’s the first time for both of us. I’ve done a little bit of research so far, but haven’t found any real reason to avoid any particular vaccinations for the baby. I’m keeping an open mind and want to do what’s best.

Is all this anti-vaccination stuff just media and internet hype? :?: I just started researching via Wikipedia, etc., but so far nothing convincing me one way or the other. I know this forum is full of critical thinkers and would appreciate any insight.

On a side note… we don’t know the sex yet, but I recently looked into the whole circumcision thing… That’s something we will definitely will not do be doing. After coming to that conclusion, I coincedentally found the thread here about it too. My palms could’ve ended up much harrier had I been left uncut.

Thanks,
A-Bomb

Revisiting Camus oncapital punishment

2008-05-09T02:41:23-05:00

Now that the Supremes have cleared the decks to begin the nasty business of administrative murder again, I went back
and re-read an essay I’d put together a couple of years ago. I think it’s held up well. Originally published here by the
Council for Secular Humanism.

I’d be interested in y’all’s opinions.

Small preview:

“Every society has the criminals it deserves.”

Camus, ‘Reflections on the Guillotine’
My sister would have been terrified, the night her junkie boyfriend beat her to death in that filthy motel room. Terrified, and disoriented; she would have been struggling to understand what was happening to her. Beating a human being to death is apparently not an easy thing to do. According to the coroner’s testimony, it took about five minutes for her to die. What was she thinking, in those five minutes? At what point in that five-minute period did she suspect she might die in that squalid room? At what point did she know she would die there, and then?

I would lay awake at night, for months after her death, unable to turn off the endless broken loop playing in my brain that kept repeating these questions. More than answers, I wanted revenge: hard, bloody-fisted revenge, bitter and uncompromising Old Testament revenge. More: I wanted to stand before those in power, point my finger at all the world’s Death Rows, and scream at the top of my lungs “Kill them all, and let God sort them out!” I was slowly going mad with my ache for revenge.

But. But. Revenge is not justice.

During the worst of my dark night of the soul, I came across an old friend who I had not thought about in years, decades: Albert Camus. I found myself re-reading his seminal essay, “Reflections on the Guillotine” (found in the closeout bin of a used bookstore). I read that tired, used old paperback copy until it literally fell apart in my hands. Camus’ demand that one must apply one’s reason to the question of ‘administrative murder’ finally penetrated my grief and my hate. Despite how I feel – indeed, because of how I feel – I am compelled to stand against the death penalty. It is important to discuss why.

“The Truth About Islam” blog

2008-01-24T17:32:28-05:00

Has anyone else seen “The Truth About Islam” blog?

Enjoy these VIDEOS of Muslim clerics speaking to other Muslims spreading hate speech - they’ve been doing this long BEFORE 9-11.
http://islamwatchers.blogspot.com

Send your own copy of this open letter to state & local representatives:

“An Open Letter to Politicians and Lawmakers in the United States”
http://nodhimmi.9f.com/

Dhimwit:

“A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Dhimwits.htm

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

-- Omar M. Ahmad, founder of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Hello from NEW Center for Inquiry in the… WOW!… “pope’s land”!

2008-05-09T17:06:28-05:00

Hello guys,

I’m Bruno Moretti Turri, astronomer, radioamateur IK2WQA, 55 years young
With many other friends and thanks to Hugo Estrella Tampieri, CFI Co-Transnational Director, now we have done the NEW CFI in Italy.

Sacrilege! Center for Inquiry in the… “pope’s land”!
Very wonderful!

I’m expert in radio astronomy and SETI enthusiast from my meet in Pasadena in 1990 with Carl Sagan, my very best friend, guide and teacher (because us atheists don’t have guru).

Please read: Reflections on a Mote of Dust by Carl Sagan
http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html

My avatar is the Flag of Earth.
The Flag of Earth flies at SETI locations around the world. It symbolizes the fact that SETI is carried out on behalf of humankind as a whole. The individual people, organizations, and nations involved are immaterial, since any signal received will belong to all of humanity, and represent Earth’s entry into the Galactic community.
The yellow part of the flag is the Sun, the blue circle symbolizes the Earth, and the small white circle represents the Moon.
http://www.flagofearth.org/original.html

Greetings to all from NEW Center For Inquiry.
Center For Inquiry Italy!

Death by Homeopathy

2008-05-09T22:03:41-05:00

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html

I am becoming the official poster of child death stories.

It isn’t only anti-scientific religion of parents that children must fear.

Natural or Supernatural

2008-05-10T07:18:50-05:00

This is my first posting here after listening to the Tom Clarke interview on Naturalism and Supernaturalism.
He made the point that his Naturalism followed science and therefore was evidence based.
At the start D.J. asked if Tom was not being arrogant and how could he be certain the supernatural doesn’t exist - a charge Clarke denied.
In some ways I agree with Tom - that there can be no two camps, everything must be covered by science or it’s not science if science is seen as a way of explaining the universe around us.
But I would argue that the ‘supernatural’ is only labelled that because science cannot come to terms with it.
In many ways people like Tom create the supernatural because he argues that anything science cannot get to grips with therefore cannot exist. Therefore it must not be natural but super natural.
At one time I am sure humans would have seen, say, lightning as ‘supernatural’ because electricity was not understood.
Similarly meteorites falling from the sky would have been labelled supernatural and a thousand other examples of phenomena or happenings which were observed but not able to be explained by science.
I would argue that similarly much of the paranormal or stuff that’s called supernatural are natural events or phenomena that science has not yet understood.
By definition of time and understanding, Tom would surely agree that at this point in history there is bound to be a wealth of naturalness which still cannot be fathomed by science, because surely over the next hundred, thousand or ten thousand years science will still be making momentous discoveries. As always it has ever been.
So when DJ the questioner bracketed God along with the afterlife as aspects Tom’s philosophy was hoping to replace - maybe they should be left open.
It’s probably a kind of humanist blashphemy to mention it on this board, but scientific research is ongoing on whether consciousness resides within the brain and not outside - aka Near Death Experiences and mediumistic research by Professor Gary Schwartz.
Quantum physicists are theorising about parallel universes - so what if one of those universes was found by future science to be the world of the dead? Would that make it supernatural? No of course not. Everything has got to be natural.
What I’d like to ask Tom is that if he was given proof or convincing evidence for instance that ghosts do exist - would he accept that this wasn’t so much supernatural as natural he hadn’t fully previously had evidence for?
The God issue is a much larger question but cannot you humanists at least leave a little room for future discoveries to include at least some of the areas currently labelled paranormal or supernatural? I seem to recall that Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith is well open to concepts of mind which are pretty close to psychic research.
So in summary I’m agreeing there is no supernatural but that events we now see as super-normal or paranormal or super natural will one day be encompassed by science and seen as totally natural.