which he has kindly allowed me to post, is below. I'll address the comments in the previous post after Sabbath.
NRO diary7 messages
| Aryeh Kontorovich | Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:54 AM |
| To: gxnmvw7e |
| |
| John Derbyshire <> | Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:13 AM |
| To: Aryeh Kontorovich <> |
Thank you, Aryeh. I really didn't get any of that, though.
>>there is absolutely no logical reason to prefer materialism over a belief in a higher power
But there is: it's called "Occam's Razor"
And why is there anything mysterious about humans caring for their
children? All the higher animals care for their children. It's called
n-a-t-u-r-e.
Best,
JD
[Quoted text hidden] --
John Derbyshire
[Old website] http:\\www.olimu.com
[New website] http:\\www.johnderbyshire.com
| |
| Aryeh Kontorovich <> | Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:26 AM |
| To: John Derbyshire <> |
Thank you for the prompt reply! I think the readers would be rather interested to see your reply -- may I post it in the comments? Re: Occam's Razor. This is perfectly fine and good for understanding and predicting natural phenomena (and indeed, is a perfectly natural hypothesis selection criterion in science, with some rigorous mathematical justification). For morality and ethics, the scientific method is woefully inadequate. Re: n-a-t-u-r-e. Not so fast. Natural human instincts (such as for food and sex) are easily subverted by modern technology to serve pure hedonism (cf. junk food, contraception, pornography). Why doesn't every atheist spend his life on a womanizing drug binge? Cheers, -Aryeh[Quoted text hidden] | |
| John Derbyshire <> | Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:34 AM |
| To: Aryeh Kontorovich |
Sure. Use as you like. Just spell my name right.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Aryeh Kontorovich
wrote:
> Thank you for the prompt reply! I think the readers would be rather
> interested to see your reply -- may I post it in the comments?
>
> Re: Occam's Razor. This is perfectly fine and good for understanding and
> predicting natural phenomena (and indeed, is a perfectly natural hypothesis
> selection criterion in science, with some rigorous mathematical
> justification). For morality and ethics, the scientific method is woefully
> inadequate.
Sez who? Seems perfectly adequate to me.
>
> Re: n-a-t-u-r-e. Not so fast. Natural human instincts (such as for food and
> sex) are easily subverted by modern technology to serve pure hedonism (cf.
> junk food, contraception, pornography). Why doesn't every atheist spend his
> life on a womanizing drug binge?
It's an empirical fact that they don't. Perhaps they are just better
in touch with their nature than you believers.
The empirical fact is, in fact, even worse for your case than that.
The less religion, the more morality. Religious nations (India,
Nigeria, Mexico) have worse stats om crime, dysfunction, HIV, etc.
that irreligious ones (Norway, Japan, New Zealand). The most
religious subgroup of the US population is Af-Ams; the leasst
religious, E-Asian Americans. Guess which way the crime/HIV/etc.
stats go?
If it's morality you want, hang out with unbelievers!
JD
[Quoted text hidden] | |
| Aryeh Kontorovich | Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:48 AM |
| To: John Derbyshire <> |
Sure. Use as you like. Just spell my name right.
did I misspell your name in the post or correspondence? My sincere apologies (though I haven't been able to locate an error after several cursory glances).
> Re: Occam's Razor. This is perfectly fine and good for understanding and
> predicting natural phenomena (and indeed, is a perfectly natural hypothesis
> selection criterion in science, with some rigorous mathematical
> justification). For morality and ethics, the scientific method is woefully
> inadequate.
Sez who? Seems perfectly adequate to me.
Well, the Nazis had used the scientific method to determine that a human ceases to live outside a certain temperature and pressure range. Scientifically, those were sound experiments. Science tells us what we can do. Morality tells us what we should do.
It's an empirical fact that they don't. Perhaps they are just better
in touch with their nature than you believers.
Actually, if you look at the demographics in America and Europe, you'll see that the believers make much better breeders than the non-believers. Say what you will about Muslims, but they certainly seem to be beating the rational, logical westerners at this game.
The empirical fact is, in fact, even worse for your case than that.
The less religion, the more morality. Religious nations (India,
Nigeria, Mexico) have worse stats om crime, dysfunction, HIV, etc.
that irreligious ones (Norway, Japan, New Zealand). The most
religious subgroup of the US population is Af-Ams; the leasst
religious, E-Asian Americans. Guess which way the crime/HIV/etc.
stats go?
If it's morality you want, hang out with unbelievers!
-AK
| |
| John Derbyshire <> | Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:08 PM |
| To: Aryeh Kontorovich <> |
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Aryeh Kontorovich
>> > Re: Occam's Razor. This is perfectly fine and good for understanding and
>> > predicting natural phenomena (and indeed, is a perfectly natural
>> > hypothesis
>> > selection criterion in science, with some rigorous mathematical
>> > justification). For morality and ethics, the scientific method is
>> > woefully
>> > inadequate.
>>
>> Sez who? Seems perfectly adequate to me.
>
>
> Well, the Nazis had used the scientific method to determine that a human
> ceases to live outside a certain temperature and pressure range.
> Scientifically, those were sound experiments. Science tells us what we can
> do. Morality tells us what we should do.
You lose a point there for being the first to say "Nazi". Don't you
know the damn rules?
>> It's an empirical fact that they don't. Perhaps they are just better
>> in touch with their nature than you believers.
>
> Actually, if you look at the demographics in America and Europe, you'll see
> that the believers make much better breeders than the non-believers. Say
> what you will about Muslims, but they certainly seem to be beating the
> rational, logical westerners at this game.
Yes. Religious belief contributes to fitness (in the technical
biological sense -- increases your genome's chances of passing on its
material).
And this proves ... what? That evolution is a haphazard business,
that sooner or later heads in a wrong direction. Which any biologist
could have told you. Biologist's joke: "To a first approximation, all
species are extinct." It's actually about 99.9 percent.
>
>> The empirical fact is, in fact, even worse for your case than that.
>> The less religion, the more morality. Religious nations (India,
>> Nigeria, Mexico) have worse stats om crime, dysfunction, HIV, etc.
>> that irreligious ones (Norway, Japan, New Zealand). The most
>> religious subgroup of the US population is Af-Ams; the leasst
>> religious, E-Asian Americans. Guess which way the crime/HIV/etc.
>> stats go?
>>
>> If it's morality you want, hang out with unbelievers!
>
>
> I certainly wasn't defending all religions as morally virtuous (I was merely
> defending religious faith from the conflation with superstition). As far as
> moral superiority, I am only prepared to defend Judaism.
That old thing? I'll give it another 3,000 yrs, then -- pfffft!
--
[Quoted text hidden] | |
2 comments:
"Natural human instincts (such as for food and sex) are easily subverted by modern technology to serve pure hedonism (cf. junk food, contraception, pornography). Why doesn't every atheist spend his life on a womanizing drug binge?"
This is an astonishing argument. You have a theory about how people would act if there was no God, but people actually don't act that way. Therefore there is a God! Wow!
Speaking as an atheist who used to drink too much, I can say that my motivation for stopping wasn't some higher moral calling. I found my life less enjoyable than before I drank, so I decided to stop. I think what you're missing is that there are negative consequences to pure hedonism.
Re: the "conflation" of religious faith with superstition. Do you consider anything superstition? (Astrology, voodoo, homeopathic medicine, etc?) I guarantee that believers in them don't view them as superstition. In fact, it's almost impossible to view anything that you actually believe as superstition consistently.
To atheists, religion looks like a superstition. You don't see it as superstition because you live inside a worldview where Judaism is actually *true*. From the outside, it looks a bit different.
Anonymous, you seem to have missed my point entirely. At no point have I ever tried to "prove" the existence of God (I can think of few endeavors more futile and pointless).
Re: drinking. Perhaps you weren't drinking enough? Perhaps if you'd constantly stayed drunk enough never to remember your troubles you'd be a happier man? Yes, the drug junkie experiences painful withdrawal when the high wears off. Which does a typical junkie prefer -- long and painful rehab, or another hit?
Your last question is an interesting one. I think a valid distinction between religion and superstition may be drawn, along the following lines. Superstitions typically suppose a direct cause and effect. Knock on wood, black cats, and so forth are meant to prevent immediate harm caused in some mystical way.
On the other hand, religious observance -- or at least Jewish observance -- is an anathema to all this. Ask an observant Jew, "what will happen to you if you eat pork?" I guarantee you that none of us are afraid of a lightning bolt from above or any similar such misfortune stemming from the act of eating pork. Eating pork would contaminate our souls and make us more distant from God and His commandments -- and that's reason enough to abstain from it.
Post a Comment