GIORDANO BRUNO WAS NOT A MARTYR FOR SCIENCE

Giordano Bruno did no science and was not a scientist. Bruno was a follower of a movement called Hermetism, which was a cult that based its beliefs on documents which were thought to have originated in Egypt at the time of Moses. These writings were linked with the teaching of the Egyptian God Thoth, the God of learning and had arrived in Italy from Macedonia in the 1460s. To followers of this cult, Thoth was known as Hermes Trismegitus, or Hermes the thrice great. The book of Toth placed the sun at the centre of the universe. This is what Bruno followed. No science - only adoption of Hermeticism. He was jailed and executed because the church considered him a heretic. The church wanted him to just recant his claims that Hermetism was the one true religion not because of his claims about the universe. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

4 Cosmology

Bruno is best known for his championship of Copernicus in The Ash Wednesday Supper. In De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) (1543), Copernicus had argued both that the earth had its own daily rotation, and that it rotated around the sun (see Copernicus, N.). These theses challenged Aristotelian cosmology, but the force of the challenge was recognized only gradually. It was not until 1616 that De Revolutionibus was put on the Index of books forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church, and ironically, it may have been in part Bruno’s defence of Copernicus that led to this result, for he pointed out that Copernicus’ theory was inconsistent with the standard ways of interpreting the Bible at that time. Bruno took Copernican cosmology more seriously and less metaphorically than Yates suggests when she writes ‘The sun-centred universe was the symbol of Bruno’s vision of universal magical religion, inspired by the works of "Hermes Trismegistus"’ (Yates 1982: 219). Nonetheless, it is true that Bruno showed little interest in the mathematical basis of Copernicus’ work. He criticized Copernicus for ‘being more intent on the study of mathematics than of nature’ ([1584a] 1975: 57), a point which ties in with his other attacks on mathematics, and his emphasis on numerology in such writings as De monade. Moreover, Bruno got some of the technical details wrong, perhaps because he was drawing on the writings of a French bishop, Pontus de Tyard, who was favourable to Copernicus, but muddled.

In both The Ash Wednesday Supper and On the Infinite Universe and Worlds Bruno makes a series of cosmological claims that owe much to Lucretius and Nicholas of Cusa. First, the universe is infinite, which means that it can have no centre, though there are many world-systems each of which may have its own centre. Second, these worlds may be inhabited. Third, the stars can be regarded as suns, that is, as self-luminous bodies, and they should not be seen as fixed on spheres. Fourth, the earth is made of the same stuff as the other worlds: there is no difference of kind between the sublunar realm and the heavenly realms, as Aristotelians argued. Finally, the celestial bodies that constitute the universe are ‘intelligent animals’ ([1584a] 1975: 46). Indeed, it is because the earth is animate that it must rotate. It has an ‘innate animal instinct’ ([1584c] 1950: 266), and there is no need to postulate extrinsic movers.

"YOU WERE NEVER A TRUE CHRISTIAN!" - NO TRUE CHRISTIAN FALLACY

 

NO TRUE CHRISTIAN FALLACY

FORM

Person A: "No Christian ever leaves Christianity."
Person B: "But I was a Christian and I left Christianity. "
Person A: "But no true Christian ever leaves Christianity."

This accusation is a classic "no true Scotsman" argument because it attempts to redefine ad-hoc what a Christian is. According to the definition, no person could ever have been a Christian if they leave Christianity at some point in the future.

It would be impossible using this criteria - the abandoning of a religion - to determine who, among current Christians, is actually a "true Christian". How many unwitting imposters attend church every week? How come the true Christians were never able to "sniff these impostors out" while these "fakes" were still attending the same religious rituals as obediently as possible? This is clearly absurd.

Mandatory Bible Verse For Trew Kristyuns: 1 Samuel 16:7 “The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (In other words, according to this bible verse, you cannot tell who is, or is not, a true Christian. Only God knows.)

 

Matt Dillahunty - Do "credentials" / qualifications matter?

 

The new atheists aren't like the old atheists who had "credentials" / qualifications in philosophy (and thus logic). It definitely shows! The new atheists tell everyone about their atheism whether you want to know about it or not. Their atheist evangelism becomes incredibly boring and they use the same high school level methodology from atheist blogs and podcasts.

I've just blocked Matt Dillahunty on the Facebook page of a "friend" called "sweet little thing" (name hidden to protect the ignorant).

"sweet little thing" appears to have no other hobby than endlessly posting about atheism. A true atheist evangelist!

Matt Dillahunty went to high school. He is an American atheist activist and former president of the Atheist Community of Austin, a position he held from 2006 to 2013. Between 2005 and October 2022, Dillahunty was host of the televised webcast The Atheist Experience. He formerly hosted the live Internet radio show Non-Prophets Radio and founded the counter-apologetics project Iron Chariots.

Both Matt Dillahunty and "sweet little thing" accused me of "equivocation" for daring to ask if qualifications mattered in science. Here is the quote from Matt Dillahunty I used.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM https://twitter.com/matt_dillahunty/status/436273926654529536?fbclid=IwAR3J01G9UEP5JpG4xd1yFdILlW7OR8STpPrcBeZwr-K1ueOUbsEVSyv47h4 
I've been told there's a reddit discussion about my credentials. Easy. I have none. No degrees. No seminary. Doesn't matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my country, Australia, the Australian QUALIFICATION Framework (capitals for emphasis) is how credentials are decided. Obviously these geniuses don't understand that verifiable fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM https://www.aqf.edu.au/

The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) is the national policy for regulated qualifications in Australian education and training.

It incorporates the qualifications from each education and training sector into a single comprehensive national qualifications framework.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The new atheists seem to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. They think they are experts in fields that they have never formally studied.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM C J Werleman, The New Atheist Threat (The Dangerous Rise Of Secular Extremists), Dangerous Little Books: 2015, Chapter 3 - The Echo Chamber pp 36 -37

In 2014, I shared a bus ride with popular New Atheist Matt Dillahunty. We had a great chat and he’s a terrific fella, but he told me, “As atheists we have to be experts in theology, anthropology, cosmology, geology, and biology.” Two thoughts came to mind: why? and you’re not. That’s not a slight on Dillahunty. It’s merely an observation that one would have to be smarter than Stephen Hawking to be considered a bona fide expert in each of these respective fields. And the only reason I could think as to why he would believe an atheist has to be an expert in all those fields is if he believes atheists need to evangelize their atheism to religious believers. Worryingly, many New Atheists I have debated or spoken to actually boast that they are experts in many or all of those respective fields even when it’s obvious they have no more than a Wikipedia level understanding of theology, for instance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quoting Matt Dillahunty again: "credentials (aka qualifications) ... I have none. No degrees. No seminary. Doesn't matter."

My first question: Do "credentials" / qualifications matter for a person performing brain surgery in Australia?

Doesn't matter?????!!!!!

1. It's illegal in Australia to perform brain surgery without a proper accredited qualification (aka "credential") as per the Australian QUALIFICATION Framework.

2. Supposing it were legal, an atheist car mechanic might claim that he knows everything about brain surgery but, as he has never been assessed as competent to be awarded the relevant accredited qualification, one doesn't know anything about his level of expertise.

My second question: Do "credentials" / qualifications matter for a person doing philosophy of religion (the subject area every time an atheist like Matt Dillahunty mentions God) in Australia?

An atheist car mechanic might claim that he knows everything about philosophy of religion but, as he has never been assessed as competent to be awarded the relevant accredited qualification, one doesn't know anything about his level of expertise.

Matt Dillahunty does philosophy of religion extremely poorly. His main targets are fundamentalist Christians who are easy targets. His methodology consists of asking questions and avoiding questions asked of him. It's high school stuff and it shows.

GIORDANO BRUNO WAS NOT A MARTYR FOR SCIENCE BUT A FOLLOWER OF HERMETICISM

 

FROM https://historyforatheists.com/2017/03/the-great-myths-3-giordano-bruno-was-a-martyr-for-science/?fbclid=IwAR1VCUkoDmtFX2Jr1c_q2018P9uM1XYXB7Wc-hPY2-PJytrW6LWVswwIPuo

"Giordano Bruno was a martyr for science!" is a myth often repeated on social media. Giordano Bruno did no science and was not a scientist. Bruno was a follower of a movement called Hermetism, which was a cult that based its beliefs on documents which were thought to have originated in Egypt at the time of Moses. These writings were linked with the teaching of the Egyptian God Thoth, the God of learning and had arrived in Italy from Macedonia in the 1460s. To followers of this cult, Thoth was known as Hermes Trismegitus, or Hermes the thrice great. The book of Toth placed the sun at the centre of the universe. This is what Bruno followed. No science - only adoption of Hermeticism.

T H HUXLEY - MEANING OF AGNOSTIC

 

Agnostic: "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895),

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

 

What is philosophy?

1 - The love of wisdom (Greek: philo - love, sophia - wisdom)

2 - Footnotes to Plato (428 – 347 BCE)

A.N Whitehead (1861 – 1947): “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them”. 

3 - The ‘queen of the sciences’. It interrogates the underpinning intellectual framework which is taken for granted in specific subject areas.

Main Branches of Philosophy

Metaphysics
(the study of existence and the nature of reality)

Epistemology
(the study of knowledge, and how and what we know)

Ethics
(the study of how people should act, and what is good and valuable)

Aesthetics
(the study of basic philosophical questions about art and beauty)

Logic
(the study of good reasoning, by valid inference and demonstration)
 
Political Philosophy
(the study of how people should interact in a proper society)

Philosophy of Mind
(the study of the nature of mind, consciousness, etc)

Philosophy of Religion
(the study of the nature of religion, God, evil, prayer, etc)

Philosophy of History
(the study of the eventual significance, if any, of human history)

Philosophy of Language
(the study of the nature, origins, and usage of language)

Philosophy of Science
(the study of the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science)

Philosophy of Education
(the study of the purpose, process, nature and ideals of education)

(Image from Leunig)

LOGICAL FALLACY: Argumentum ad Aurum - 'Follow the Money' Fallacy

A wonderful article found at https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/09/08/argumentum-ad-aurum-follow-money-fallacy-10133

This fallacious argument is thrown over and over again at scientists and journalists, in particular. Don't like a scientist's research? Follow the money! Don't like a journalist's opinion? Follow the money! For many, the only conceivable reason that a person dares to disagree is because he or she is being paid off by [Insert BIG ______ here]. In this bizarre worldview, there are only two types of people: truth-tellers and paid shills. ...

Why does the "follow the money" argument fail so miserably? There are three major reasons.

First, everybody has to get their money from somebody. ...

Second, as counterintuitive as this is going to sound, money usually doesn't change people's opinions. ...

Third, research suggests that people who are paid to support a particular cause are less persuasive. So, hiring "paid shills" would be a bad business decision.

Paul Tournier - Learning To Grow Old (Quotes)

From Paul Tournier 'Learning To Grow Old' (SCM Press:1972)

We have to give up all sorts of things, and accept with serenity the prospect of death, while remaining as active, as sociable and friendly as we can, despite an unavoidable measure of loneliness. We must learn to use leisure profitably, take up new interests, interest ourselves in young people and new ideas. pp 1-2

What each of us needs is a 'reconversion' from earning our living to cultural activity. ... To acquire culture ... is to develop oneself, to progress, to contribute to the progress of the human race, to find a meaning in life which can survive the cessation of professional activity. p. 5

The active person allows many of his talents to lie fallow in order to develop a few which are indispensable to his professional and social success. The integration to which Jung calls him in the second part of his life, this new advance towards a more complete human fulfilment, involves the reawakening of everything that he has for a long time had to sacrifice to his career. p. 11

... lots of retired people are bored because they do not know what to do with their enforced liberty! p. 20

Moreover, when one grows old, as Mauriac remarks, I believe one finds special pleasure in re-reading old books one has read in the past. p. 33 *[As I am doing now with this book.] 

.. moral injustices. One of the gravest is the fact that the retired and the aged do not feel that they are looked upon as of equal value with the other members of society, as members with a 'full share', as General de Gaulle remarked in another context. p. 37

We have given things a priority over persons, we have built up a civilization based on things rather than on person. p. 40

... those in the autumn of their lives, are reaching the summer of their wisdom. p. 123

We must change in order to stay the same. To live is to grow old. p. 182

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry PERSPECTIVE

And there I stayed a bit, ruminating and telling myself that a man was able to adapt himself to anything. The notion that he is to die in thirty years has probably never spoiled any man's fun. Thirty years ... or thirty days: It's all a matter of perspective. - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry - (Wind, Sand and Stars p. 124)

MORONS FINALLY HAVE A VOICE ON SOCIAL MEDIA

In the past, morons could only write a letter to a newspaper and the editor would read it and decide that morons should not get a priority in their newspaper and throw the letter in the 'round file'. Now any idiot can post anything on social media. The morons finally have voice!

SPORT AS A PREPARATION FOR WAR

FROM Aldous Huxley "Ends And Means" (1937) pp.187 - 188

Sport can be either a preparation for war or, in some measure, a substitute for war; a trainer either of potential war-mongers or of potential peace-lovers ; an educative influence forming either militarists or men who will be ready and able to apply the principles of pacifism in every activity of life. It is for us to choose which pan the organized amusements of children and adults shall play. In the dictatorial countries the choice has been made, consciously and without compromise. Sport there is definitely a preparation for war doubly a preparation. It is used, first of all, to prepare children for the term of military slavery which they will have to serve when they come of age to train them in habits of endurance, courage, and co-ordinated effort, and to cultivate that esprit de corps, that group-vanity and group-pride which are the very foundations of the character of a good soldier. In the second place, it is used as an instrument of nationalistic propaganda. Football matches with teams belonging to foreign countries are treated as matters of national prestige; victory is hailed as a triumph over an enemy, a sign of racial or national superiority; a defeat is put down to foul play and treated almost as a casus belli. Optimistic theorists count sport as a bond between nations. In the present state of nationalistic feeling it is only another cause of international misunderstanding. The battles waged on the football field and the race-track are merely preliminaries to, and even contributory causes of, more serious contests. In a world that has no common religion or philosophy of life, but where every national group practises its own private idolatry, international football matches and athletic contests can do almost nothing but harm.

The choice of the dictators has been, as I have said, definite and uncompromising. They have decided that sport shall be used above all as a preparation for war. ...

BRIAN DUNNING'S QUALIFICATION PLUS SCIENTIFIC SCEPTICISM VS THE FULL RANGE OF SCEPTICISM IN PHILOSOPHY

I love skepticism. Unfortunately Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast is only about scientific scepticism and not the full range of scepticism as found in philosophy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FROM http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-david-thompson/page6a.html


Brian Dunning and His Work Background and Qualifications ...


Source 1:

Summary from FBI record of interview 19 June 2007 which records Dunning's statements:

1. He has had very little formal education.

2. He does not have a college degree. (He quit college.)

3. He attended classes at BYU, UCLA, and UC Irvine.

4. He is not an experienced administrator.

5. He depended on employees at Rackspace to do most of his technical server work.

6. He does not have any formal training in computer science or any related technical field.

7. His [claimed] expertise in Filemaker Pro is self-learned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A simple definition of scepticism and its scope can be found at http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html

Skepticism (or Scepticism in the UK spelling), also known as Pyrrhonism or Pyrrhonic Skepticism after the early proponent Pyrrho of Elis, is the philosophical position that one should refrain from making truth claims, and avoid the postulation of final truths. This is not necessarily quite the same as claiming that truth is impossible (which would itself be a truth claim), but is often also used to cover the position that there is no such thing as certainty in human knowledge (sometimes referred to as Academic Skepticism).

The term is derived from the Greek verb "skeptomai" (which means "to look carefully, to reflect"), and the early Greek Skeptics were known as the Skeptikoi. In everyday usage, Skepticism refers to an attitude of doubt or incredulity, either in general or toward a particular object, or to any doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind. It is effectively the opposite of dogmatism, the idea that established beliefs are not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

In philosophy, it can refer to:

- an inquiry
- the limitations of knowledge
- a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing
- the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values
- a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment ....

Types of Skepticism

Moral Skepticism is the belief that moral knowledge is either nonexistent or unattainable.

Religious Skepticism (or Theological Skepticism) is Skepticism regarding faith-based claims. It does not necessarily imply either Atheism or Agnosticism. Religious skeptics question religious authority, and are not necessarily anti-religious but are those skeptical of a specific (or all) religious beliefs or practices. Socrates was one of the first religious skeptics, questioning the legitimacy of the beliefs of his time in the existence of the various gods, which in part led to his trial and execution.

Metaphysical Skepticism is a type of local skepticism which denies any metaphysical knowledge.

Scientific Skepticism (or Empirical Skepticism) is the questioning of the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using the scientific method (the formulation and testing of hypotheses through observation and experimentation). A scientific skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting any knowledge, especially in controversial areas such as health claims, environmental claims, parapsychology, the existence of unproven creatures, etc. So-called Activist Skeptics are a sub-set of scientific skeptics who aim to debunk or expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Contrast the above with Brian Dunning's definition of scepticism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FROM https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php

Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion. ...

Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and popular misinformation, and toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.

The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method is about the study and evaluation of evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies cannot be tested, so they generally aren't useful to the scientific method, and thus won't often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They're simply following the scientific method.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clearly that definition does not cover the full range of scepticism in philosophy.

In stark contrast is "Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present" edited by Diego Machuca & Baron Reed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FROM https://www.amazon.com/Skepticism-Antiquity-Present-Diego-Machuca/dp/1472507711

Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present is an authoritative and up-to-date survey of the entire history of skepticism. Divided chronologically into ancient, medieval, renaissance, modern, and contemporary periods, and featuring 50 specially-commissioned chapters from leading philosophers, this comprehensive volume is the first of its kind.

By exploring each of the distinct traditions and providing expert insights, this extensive reference work:

- covers major thinkers such as Sextus Empiricus, Cicero, Descartes, Hume, Spinoza, and Wittgenstein.
- acknowledges the influence of ancient skeptical traditions on later philosophy and explains why it is still a fertile topic of inquiry among today's philosophers and historians of philosophy.
- analyzes various forms of skepticism including Pyrrhonian, Academic, religious, moral, and neo-Pyrrhonian.
- addresses issues in contemporary epistemology and indicates new directions of study.

Skepticism, a driving force in the history of philosophy, remains at the center of debates in ethics, philosophy of religion, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind. Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present is an essential point of reference for any student, researcher, or practitioner of philosophy, presenting a systematic and historical survey of this core philosophical topic.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE - EQUALITY VS INEQUALITY

My argument for same sex marriage is based upon ethics.

The debate is one between equality and inequality.

1. - What is the moral harm in marriage equality?
2. - What is the moral good in marriage inequality?

One has to ask why anyone who cared about homosexual people would want to treat homosexual people unequally compared to the rest of Australian citizens.

Can you really care about another person and treat them unequally?
Can one really care about women and treat them unequally in sexism?
Can one really care about Aboriginals and treat them unequally in racism?
Can one really care about homosexual people and treat them unequally in denying them the exact same legal rights as heterosexual married people by voting No?

These are not inconsequential questions but those which are at the very heart of the problem.

CHRISTIAN VERSION FOR THOSE WHO LIKE THE ACL

Can you really love your neighbour (as Jesus commanded) and treat them unequally?
Can you really love your female neighbour and treat them unequally in sexism?
Can you really love your Aboriginal neighbour and treat them unequally in racism?
Can you really love your LGBTI neighbour and treat them unequally in denying them the exact same legal rights as heterosexual married people by voting No?

THE "COYNE FALLACY" NAMED AFTER JERRY COYNE

This is the most-people-believe-what’s-false-therefore-it’s-false fallacy, or the Coyne fallacy, named after its most frequent user, Jerry Coyne. This fallacy is used to reject a proposition because most people misunderstand or hold false beliefs about that proposition. So that if the average church or temple goer has a definition of God that suffers certain inconsistencies, therefore God doesn’t exist. If you accept that then you’d have to believe that since the average citizen has mistaken ideas about evolution (holding to Intelligent Design, say), therefore evolution is false. Truth is not a vote.

FROM http://wmbriggs.com/post/11494/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jerry Coyne laughs and tries to dismiss it but he has a very poor understanding of philosophy. He engages in "foolosophy" (love of foolishness) rather than philosophy (love of wisdom).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FROM philosopher Edwad Fesser.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/the-pointlessness-of-jerry-coyne.html

People have asked me to comment on the recent spat between Jerry Coyne and Ross Douthat. As longtime readers of this blog know from bitter experience, there’s little point in engaging with Coyne on matters of philosophy and theology. He is neither remotely well-informed, nor fair-minded, nor able to make basic distinctions or otherwise to reason with precision. Nor, when such foibles are pointed out to him, does he show much interest in improving. ...

Naturally, his incompetence is coupled with a preposterous degree of compensatory self-confidence. As I once pointed out about Dawkins, Coyne may by now have put himself in a position that makes it psychologically impossible for him even to perceive serious criticism. The problem is that his errors are neither minor, nor occasional, nor committed in the shadows, nor expressed meekly. He commits a howler every time he opens his mouth, and he opens it very frequently, very publicly, and very loudly. His blunders are of a piece, so that to confess one would be to confess half a decade’s worth -- to acknowledge what everyone outside his combox already knows, viz. that he is exactly the kind of bigot he claims to despise. That is a level of humiliation few human beings can bear. Hence the defense mechanism of training oneself to see only ignorance and irrationality even in the most learned and sober of one’s opponents; indeed, to see it even before one sees those opponents. And so we have the spectacle of Coyne’s article last week on David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God, wherein he launches a 2800 word attack on a book he admits he has not read. The sequel of self-delusion, it seems, is self-parody.

Still, it is worthwhile responding now and again to people like Coyne, so that bystanders who wouldn’t otherwise know any better can see just how pathetic are the “arguments” of New Atheists. ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FROM philosopher Bill Vallicella.

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/11/the-abysmally-ignorant-jerry-coyne.html

The Abysmally Ignorant Jerry Coyne
Jerry Coyne complains:

Another problem is that scientists like me are intimidated by philosophical jargon, and hence didn’t interrupt the monologues to ask for clarification for fear of looking stupid. I therefore spent a fair amount of time Googling stuff like “epistemology” and “ontology” (I can never get those terms straight since I rarely use them).

This is an amazing confession. It shows that the man is abysmally ignorant outside his specialty. He is not wondering about the distinction between de dicto and de re, but about a Philosophy 101 distinction. It would be as if a philosopher couldn't distinguish between velocity and acceleration, or mass and weight, or a scalar and a vector, or thought that a light-year was a measure of time.

Despite his ignorance of the simplest distinctions, Coyne is not bashful about spouting off on topics he knows nothing about such as free will. Lawrence Krauss is another of this scientistic crew. And Dawkins. And Hawking and Mlodinow. And . . . . Their arrogance stands in inverse relation to their ignorance. A whole generation of culturally-backward and half-educated scientists does not bode well for the future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM philosopher Massimo Pigliucci.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/jerry-coyne-then-and-now.html

But when it comes to writing for the general public, I suggest that scientists stick to what they know best, unless they are willing to engage the literature of the field(s) that they wish to comment upon. When Coyne makes statements of the type “anybody doing any kind of science should abandon his or her faith if they wish to become a philosophically consistent scientist”, he literally does not know what he is talking about because he does not have a grasp of what it means to be “philosophically consistent” in this context. He has of course no obligation to study philosophy, but then he should refrain from writing about it as a matter of intellectual honesty toward his readers.

DANIEL DENNETT ON HOW TO COMPOSE A SUCCESSFUL CRITICAL COMMENTARY

FROM Daniel Dennett "Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking" (W. Norton & Co: 2014) p.25

... a list of rules promulgated many years ago by the social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport [Rapoport’s Rules ] ...

How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1 - You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2 - You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3 - You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4 - Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

LOGIC IS THE DOMAIN OF PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE OR ATHEISM

Logic is firmly within the domain of Philosophy. Logical thinking is not automatic for atheists (who like to call themselves "critical thinkers" or "Brights") nor does logic originate in the domain of science.

George Hrab gets skepticism wrong

How many different ways can one get a simple philosophical concept wrong? George Hrab ( from the Geologic Podcast) shows us while speaking outside his area of expertise which is music. He has a Bachelor of Music from Moravian College (1993). He has no qualification in philosophy which is the topic of this TED talk found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orSjZaeyISI

Where George Hrab is wrong and at what stage in the lecture:


1. 0.13 "Skepticism. Why? Why not?"
He is only speaking of scientific skepticism which as small part of philosophical skepticism. I quote from https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

"Skepticism ... in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of accepted assumptions."


2. 3.47 "[Skepticism is] Evidence based thinking."

I quote from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html

"Skepticism ... is the philosophical position that one should refrain from making truth claims, and avoid the postulation of final truths. "


3. 6:05 "I have no faith in anything. I have trust."
I quote from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

"faith

NOUN

1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."


4. 6:29 "Skepticism is not a belief system ... it is a tool." 
I quote from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html
"Skepticism ... is [a] philosophical position" hence a belief system.


From https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Philosophical_Position

"A philosophical position is, broadly speaking, a belief that a particular statement is either true or false."


5. 8:37 "Modern skepticism looks like this chart - a co-mingling of science education and consumer protection. ... Right in the middle is skepticism."

I again quote from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html

"Skepticism ... is the philosophical position that one should refrain from making truth claims, and avoid the postulation of final truths. "

At 22:04 he states: "Learn which resources to trust." I totally agree! Don't trust this TED talk as a reliable resource on philosophical skepticism. It fails the CRAP test.

I quote from hhttps://libraries.mercer.edu/research-tools-help/citation-tools-help/images/PrintableCRAPtest.pdf

"Evaluating Research Sources
Currency ...
Reliability/Relevance ...
Authority - Who authored this information? ...
- Are their credentials provided?
- What is their reputation or expertise? *[Hint: A degree in music, and doing lots of podcasts, does not make you an expert in philosophy.] ...
Purpose/Point-of-View"

I do agree with him on another point (23:50). Treat this TED talk as an April Fool's joke. Check before you forward this post (21:48). Get an education in philosophical skepticism in the Links below. Scientific skepticism is only a very small part of philosophical skepticism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LINKS ON PHILOSOPHICAL SKEPTICISM

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepcont/

WHAT IF I'M WRONG?

Some very basic philosophical questions: "What really matters to you? How should you then live?" You can find out the answer by measuring the time you spend on certain activities. This is relevant to atheists, theists, agnostics and non-theists. If any person associated with those groups spends the majority of their time telling other people how they should live their lives then they probably don't have much of an "authentic" life ( to quote atheist Jean-Paul Sartre). They are, instead, totally consumed with ensuring everyone else has the exact same world-view as themselves and are thus "inauthentic".

I'd rather live my own life and enjoy it than spend my life consumed with telling others what to do and how they are wrong because they don't share my worldview.

An "inauthentic" life becomes worse when, if you follow some of the new atheists, you are supposed to spend at least part of it mocking the views of others. Mocking is not a logic argument. Therefore my question is: "Is it far more important to spend the vast majority of your limited time telling others that they are wrong rather than living your own finite life? What is the benefit of such a life both to oneself and to others?" Whatever your answer, it is equally relevant to atheists, theists, agnostics and non-theists.

Of course, the other huge philosophical question is: "What if I am wrong and I have spent the majority of my finite life telling people to follow my error?"

RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE - Facebook Group

Join the discussion at https://www.facebook.com/groups/respectful.dialogue/

WHY DID I START THIS GROUP?

This group was started because of my experience with atheists.

The vast majority of atheists that I encountered in atheist forums eventually resorted to insult and / or ad hominem fallacy when I did not agree with them 100%. ( There were also many polite, educated atheists with whom it was a joy to discuss.) The Moderators approved of atheists insulting non-atheists but those who insulted atheists were warned or banned. This type of hypocrisy was rampant in the vast majority of atheist forums I was a member of or visited.

The obnoxious type of atheists were as “angry [mean], argumentative, dogmatic [closeminded]" as any fundamentalist creationist Christian I had ever met. (See http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/science-shows-new-atheists-to-be-mean-and-closed-minded/ & http://www.atheismresearch.com/ ) Many philosophers and theologians indeed call them "fundamentalist atheists". The only difference was that fundamentalist creationist Christians were not as insulting as the atheists.

Along with being “angry [mean], argumentative, dogmatic [closeminded]" the obnoxious type of atheists wrongly assumed that they had a higher IQ and were more logical and rational than any non- atheist though the vast majority had never studied the domain of logic and rationality - philosophy. Many atheists had never read the religious texts that they criticised or, if they did, could only read them in a naive amateur literalist manner. They knew very little about the nuances of hermeneutics. They regularly criticised religions though they had never met in person anyone from the religion they were criticising. They, again, knew very little about the religion's various dogmas and the different denominations within the religion.

One quite famous atheist who has a "cult" regularly uses his catch phrase of "Logic!" while at the same time sprouting some of the most illogical and irrational nonsense in an “angry [mean], argumentative, dogmatic [closeminded]" manner peppered with as many swear words that he can think of. “angry [mean], argumentative, dogmatic [closeminded]" isn't any way to persuade people to adopt your worldview.

Each month new atheists are added to this group. I have blocked more atheists for not following the group rules than any other group of people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. No personal insult of members or individuals.
2. No insult of deities / prophets / spokespeople
3. No posting threads irrelevant to the aim of the group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One would think that these minimal rules would be easy to follow but apparently they are quite difficult for some atheists who are regularly encouraged to to do the exact opposite on many forums.

Learn how to dialogue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/dialogue.htm

Dialogue is the creative thinking together that can emerge when genuine empathetic listening, respect for all participants, safety, peer relationships, suspending judgment, sincere inquiry, courageous speech, and discovering and disclosing assumptions work together to guide our conversations. It is an activity of curiosity, cooperation, creativity, discovery, and learning rather than persuasion, competition, fear, and conflict. Dialogue is the only symmetrical form of communication. Dialogue emerges from trusting relationships. ...

- Balance Inquiry and Advocacy ...

- Listening to understand ...

- Suspending judgment ...

- Respecting all: Attribute positive motives and constructive intent to each participant. Appreciate all that is good about them, all that you share in common with them, and all they can contribute. Acknowledge the dignity, legitimacy, worth, and humanity of the person speaking. Allow for differing viewpoints and learn all you can from them. Examine the origins within your self of any tendency you have to disrespect participants. Resist your temptation to blame. Remain humble and accept that they can teach us and we can learn from them. Attain and appreciate their viewpoint; do not attack, intrude, deny, dismiss, dispute, or discount their comments. Banish violence.

- Speaking your voice ...

Quotations:

“People don't listen, they reload.” ...

“The unity of contraries is the mystery at the innermost core of dialogue.” ~ Martin Buber ...

“Inquiry and violence cannot coexist.” ~ Peter Garrett

“The magic of dialogue is that it really does enhance respect and acceptance of others.” ~ Daniel Yankelovich ...

“There is something valid in every position.” ~ Johan Galtung ...

IQ TESTS FOR POLITICIANS

The time has come for IQ tests in order to be a politician. Those with less than 120 should be instantly dismissed. One should also have academic qualifications that address agreed standards in areas such as politics, philosophy and the arts or sciences as well as a well rounded tertiary education. Bean counters need not apply. All jobs, except those for politicians, have skill and knowledge requirements and levels for employment. The only current qualifications to be a politician in Australia are:
- be over 18 years old
- not be a criminal
- have money for associated fees
- fool enough sheeple so that they will vote for you (Of course, 50% of the voters have a less than average IQ which explains a lot. The regulations also mean that 50% of politicians have a less than average IQ which also explains a lot. )

Thus any idiot can become a politician in Australia ... and usually does. I could point to some ignorant members of Federal, State and Local government.

The following article also works for all levels of Australian politics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From http://nypost.com/2013/04/08/we-need-an-iq-test-for-politicians/

... I’m starting to think that what we really need are IQ tests for political officeholders. The only problem is, that might leave us with a lot of vacancies in Congress and America’s statehouses.

... ignorance and incompetence are on regular display among our political class. Its members are good at what they do — but what they do, really, is raise money and win elections. There’s no particular correlation between those skills and any other kind of competence. In fact, given their record of passing increasingly dumb laws, if there’s any correlation at all, it’s a negative one. ...

Politicians getting smarter on their own is probably too much to hope for. But maybe if voters wise up, a smarter crop of politicians will follow.