A Pat on the Back for Matzke
by BradfordBradley Monton authored Matzke’s insights at Bradley Monton’s Blog. The first paragraph:
Nick Matzke, formerly of the anti-intelligent design National Center for Science Education, has sometimes given me a hard time via email for my views on intelligent design. So that is reason enough for me to highlight an important area of agreement between him and me, which shows up in this interesting post by Matzke. But also, I want to highlight this because I think Matzke makes some key points regarding what’s wrong with the Dawkins-style approach toward religion:
You'll find the full blog entry at the link. So Nick is giving Bradley a hard time in some private exchanges. Why is ID such a big concern to you Nick? Does science need you to save it?
Thanks to Clare.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:26 am
Nick Matzke makes some fine sense there. Frankly, it's shocking to see those words come from his fingertips. So, kudos to him.
Kudos to Monton too for being generally interesting on this topic.
Comment by nullasalus — March 21, 2009 @ 1:26 am
March 21st, 2009 at 10:17 am
nullasalus:
I suspect Nick has come to grips with an evident truth. Superfluous bashing of religious people backfires in the long run. Sure it makes some feel macho to vent their poison but it invites resistance and retaliation which can jeopardize other goals. I think Nick is being pragmatic.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2009 @ 10:17 am
March 21st, 2009 at 10:20 am
Quoting Nick Matzke:
I very much agree with Nick on this point.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2009 @ 10:20 am
March 21st, 2009 at 10:23 am
Hi Bradford and Nullasalus,
My complements to you both for publically recognizing Nick Matze's more inclusive outlook.
However, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that you are surprised (e.g. "shocking").
Believe it or not, atheist-leaning agnostics like Nick and myself can be moral, altruistic and, even, tolerant of opposing opinions.
I suggest it is our altruistic nature that compels us to care about our fellow man. This is why people like Nick aggressively challenge actions like promoting an alleged science textbook teaching impressionable children "…that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Of Pandas and People, page 99).
I would hope most independently thinking people would recognize just about everyone feels their actions are right and just. While personal worldviews can be a result of repetitive dogma and/or faulty logic based on biased assumptions, generally motivations are pure, or at least, rationalized. I suggest this is true for BOTH sides of issues.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2009 @ 10:23 am
March 21st, 2009 at 11:11 am
TP,
Atheists, particularly ones with the unmitigated gall to waltz into a thread and describe themselves as moral and altruistic, many times show they can be as obnoxiously self-righteous as the most irritating front-pew show-Christians around.
I don't know if 'everyone feels their actions are right and just'. I could make a guess – and it would be just a guess – and it also wouldn't align with your psychoanalysis of the world. Though I love the contrast of how you'd hope most independent thinkers would all have the same opinion of how everyone thinks the same way.
Regardless, there's more I could take issue with, but I won't bother taking up said issues with an embodied gimmick.
Comment by nullasalus — March 21, 2009 @ 11:11 am
March 21st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
Is this surprising?
If your intent was to imply disapproval of me commenting on this thread, I would have hoped you would have voiced it more directly. I am earnest in my praise for Bradford publicly acknowledging at least one ID critic might not be TOTALLY unreasonable and giving him a "pat on the back".
If I didn't care, I wouldn't have commented.
For the record, I said "JUST ABOUT everyone feels their actions are right and just".
Yes, there are mental disorders where concepts of "right" and "wrong" aren't processed the same as with the majority of other people.
Do you think your actions are right and just?
Are you surprised I think my actions are right and just?
Can you name someone whose actions, in your opinion, aren't guided by their personal view of what is right and just?
While I expect you to be consistent in your habit of punching and ducking, I suggest this discussion is very much on topic for this thread and for a blog whose charter includes "We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation."
I think it would be wonderful if more people in the Culture War would do what Bradford did and publicly acknowledge the positive motivations of the "other side" even while vigorously disagreeing with and challenging their worldviews.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
TP:
??? My goodness, TP. I see no altruistic concern for anybody's 'fellow man' in the actions of dedicated proselytizers on either side, or among those who elevate their own egos to the point of claiming they know things that are not known. I see the selfish desire to force every knee to bend to this person's or that person's metaphysical belief system. A playing out of the psychological quirk that convinces people that if enough people can be made to believe what they believe, what they believe will magically become more true.
The wide range of human behaviors – particularly in regards to notions of "justice" – often bear no resemblance to what society considers 'good', and that's why we have criminal and civil law. This past week three of our tri-county area's largest employers burned to the ground. So far just one has been ruled arson, but most of us figure the others will be too (or should be). We're out here flapping, there's nothing on the horizon that would save what little we've got left (since our traditional industries were decimated over the past 8-10 years, textiles and fine furniture). Thousands of people are now long-term unemployed, there are no jobs moving in.
This is desperation, not altruistic concern for others. People are nothing if not volatile when their whole way of life is directly threatened. What you've got in this Culture War are people who are emotionally invested because they believe their whole way of life (beliefs) are directly threatened. They don't see the ho-hum value of these bar fights for what they are to the vast majority of people just trying to live day to day, because of that emotional investment. Their FEAR that if someone is allowed to believe something different then what they believe won't be as true.
Now, I've always considered this quite odd. The number of people that believe something has no relevance to whether or not it's true. People like to believe so, but if you can ever get them to step back a moment from their emotional investments, reality might start to break through. But that doesn't happen very often.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Look at the context of my use of the shocking emoticom. It signifies great surprise that Matzke and I agree on something (relating to existence, causes etc.) rather than imputing surprise that Matzke would formulate a moral and tolerant position.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Hi Joy,
As usual, I find it difficult to disagree with you. I am aware that I tend to be more biased in believing people are motivated by Love (“God is Love”). I think I our disagreements can be mostly be chalked up to how we choose to frame things.
I agree, there is merit in describing the motivation as simply creating truth through force. But why do we go through the extraordinary efforts of trying to rationalize and justify the truths we try to force? I suggest it is because they want to feel good about ourselves (i.e. we want to love ourselves).
It is my opinion most rationalization is for internal purposes. People want to convince THEMSELVES their worldview is right and just. I suggest the habit of people forming clusters of Group Think congregations is so they can feel good and justified in thinking the way they do.
The downside of these rationalizations for protecting personal worldviews is that they can extend to politically and/or physically attacking those who would challenge them. However, people still expend the energy to rationalize their actions as good and just, even if they are crusaders killing heretics and non-believers in the name of a rabbi who preached love and peace.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
nullasalus wrote:
To all atheists who have the unmitigated gall to comment on this Judeo-Christian forum:
Next time consider knocking and humbly acknowledge that you are immoral and egoistic. And to be sure, mention that you eat babies and apologize profusely.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Hi Bradford,
Please forgive me for never-ending habit of being provocative.
In this case, I should have simply complimented you for putting up this thread and let it go at that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
TP:
Don't be so naive, TP! I understand your desire, but I simply do not see that it has any relevance to reality. You're old enough to know goats from sheep. Pretending not so just compromises your own life and worldview, and could harm the people around you if you insist on asserting its truth against all evidence to the contrary.
I just got off the phone from the fourth interview in the last couple of months with a reporter covering the 30th anniversary presentations in Harrisburg this week and next (accident at Three Mile Island). She, like everybody else, wanted to know how the situation got so bungled 30 years ago, and why it was so bloody "important" to cover up such a horrendous situation that by rights and by regulation required general evacuation of the thousands of people who were harmed by living in the wrong place at the wrong time.
People have a very hard time wrapping their heads around the most basic stuff when it comes to something 'scientific'. You've got a melting reactor – fuel is completely loose in the system, which is being pumped by the millions of gallons outside containment and released to the environment in such concentration that farmers were tasting metal when they milked the cows that morning! Thousands of people got cancer (or lost their babies – a 280% rise in stillbirths in the first 9 months) due to "stress." Stress caused by having been told there was an accident. The cure? Don't tell 'em next time.
A few years down the line when you finally get a robot camera into the vessel, it is "discovered" that an entire group of control rods never fell during the scram, thus the fission reaction wasn't shut down. Too late to change the assertions of Kemeny that all 69 rods fell – something they were very particular about – what do you do when you can't hide the fact that 8 of 'em didn't fall? You put together a nifty consortium of BigWigs – NRC, Electric Power Research Institute, Department of Energy – to simply re-write the laws of physics and claim that some of the control rods are only there to "shape" the reaction, and don't have to fall to shut off the fission during a scram. Voila! Suddenly fission in some parts of the core isn't the same kind of fission as in the rest of the core… What total bullshit!
They all want to know why we haven't been pounding this crap for 30 years. Well, DUH. If you've got the raw power to re-write the laws of physics in order to cover your tracks, who's going to argue except someone who knows the laws of physics, and who can trust those people? We had better things to do with our lives.
The truth is still the truth – that's never changed no matter how they re-wrote the laws of physics – but it won't stop them from reinvigorating their cash cow if there's a chance in hell that they can. Heck, they can say they want a nuke and start charging their customers for it right now [GPL] – before ground is even broken and at least 15 years before it goes on line, thereby making Big Bucks on the show even if the damned thing is NEVER built. I mean, it's not like a nuke ever came in on time or on budget, anywhere it the world. What possible difference does it make that it's deadly? They just don't tell you about accidents anymore. That way the "stress" won't kill you and there's no data on anything else that might have killed you.
I have a bad attitude about 'authority' and its ability to pretend that lies are truth and make everyone believe it by hook or by crook and enforce it with the entirely spurrious appeal to 'authority' that can re-write the laws of physics as it sees fit to cover its criminal culpability. Greed always wins. As I said, the number of believers has never in the entire history of humanity ever turned a falsehood into truth.
I don't blame a guy that's been dead for two millennia for the evil that people do in my own time, or credit any of their self-justifications as anything but self-justifications. People are responsible for their own evil deeds. It's fear that motivates them, not love.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.
Yoda
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Hi Joy,
Did Yoda actually say that in a Star Wars movie? Which one?
I don't blame a guy who has been dead for two millennia either. In fact, I think Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef had some pretty good ideas.
The funny thing about fear is that it is usually illogical. As you have pointed out, life is a terminal disease. My recent brush with death has been rather informative. My wife, friends and co-workers were much more afraid than I was. While I am not that old, I would have had no regrets if I had died.
My fears run along the line of not being able to support my wife or help my children when they will need it. I am motivated to make a positive impact on the world. Be it through my engineering efforts or provoking thought on blogs.
So what did those in charge of Three Mile Island fear? That people would hate them. That they would lose their power? That they would go to jail? I still say they rationalised tailoring their story as being justified and the right thing to do.
I need to go now. I will admit that my worldview is probably colored by wishful thinking. But my attitude is right and, at least marginially, justified.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
olegt,
You know, olegt, there's actually a third option between saying 'I am moral and altruistic' and 'I am immoral and egoistic'. You're a smart lad, why don't you puzzle out what it could be.
Good God, I can't even pay an honest compliment to one atheist/agnostic and whatever the hell Matzke is without people getting all butthurt. You'd think they were holding a petty grudge or something.
Comment by nullasalus — March 21, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
It's always good, in these uncertain times, to find some comfort in the old reliables. Like TP accusing his opponents of Group Think. And still apparently not even understanding what the term means.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — March 21, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
nullasalus,
Thank you for granting us the third option, whatever that is. I am so relieved! Now I can be immoral but altruistic, or vice versa. Well, nobody's perfect.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
TP:
Episode 1, when Whiney Anakin was being questioned about his desire to become a Jedi – gain power and prestige, which he went on to corrupt to its ultimate level as Sith Lord Darth Vader so he could be "in control."
What did they fear? Why, losing their jobs (as well as their cash cow) – not being "in control." Individually, fear of not being able to support their wives or children, or help when they need help. No one present thought they were doing "the right thing." All involved that I knew sent their wives and kids well out of state because they knew damn well what was happening. Including us.
They weren't lying about releases to save anybody's skin (including their own). They weren't hiding doses, rigging body scanners or removing alpha counters because doing so 'helped' anyone. They fundamentally worship the power, the money, their own self-importance for being all 'scientific' and stuff – it's the Most Important Thing in their lives. And so long as it wasn't their own families dying, they didn't care how many other people's families died.
This is the same mindset that dumped plutonium on people living downstream of every filthy federal facility since the beginning. The same justification for exposing thousands of people to massive doses of radiation on purpose and without their knowledge, just to see what kind of cancers it caused. The same justification that spread plutonium around so thickly in Karen Silkwood's apartment before they murdered her that reprocessing is still an inside joke and nobody in this country is allowed to do it. They get so corrupt after awhile that they can't trust each other. Or, in the end, even themselves.
I repeat – no, they most certainly did not. Sentencing untold 'others' to helplessly watch their children die because you lied is not okay. No amount of "wow, it's really cool SCIENCE!" will ever make it okay, whether you're working at TMI or a chemical plant in Bhopal or some crooked money-changing firm near the golden bull temple on Wall Street. This sort of thing simply cannot be justified no matter how popular lying becomes or how much of our way of life is based upon lies. When you build your whole civilization on lies and greed, you end up right where we are today. I don't think this is anything to be proud of, and unless we admit what's wrong it'll just keep on happening. Not exactly something worthy to bequeath to the future.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
olegt,
So you think the third option is 'I can be immoral but altruistic'? Maybe I was a bit too fast in regarding you as a smart lad.
You new agey types are a hard lot to figure out.
Comment by nullasalus — March 21, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Matzke says theism may not be so bad? To follow up on Joy's theme and my own paranoid tendencies:
"IT'S A TRAP!" – Admiral Ackbar
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 21, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 9:00 pm
"Not even the younglings survived."
Obi Wan
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm
angryoldfatman,
In Matzke's defense: While I've found his tone consistently (to this point, at least) off-putting, and I've been none too impressed by quite a lot of his rationales with regards to that tone when it comes to ID, this is this first time I recall him directly touching on the subject of theism/atheism itself. And it's not like he'd be the first whatever-he-is to notice that the standard and (at least online) popular atheist schtick leaves a lot to be desired on multiple fronts. Why, there are even atheists who find belief in God or designer(s) reasonable.
So I'm inclined to take him at his word on this. I could be wrong, but hey, it's my immediate take.
Comment by nullasalus — March 21, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 9:03 pm
nullasalus,
Yeah, maybe I'm slow. Must've overdosed on O'Leary…
Or maybe our resident Thomas Aquinas should explain what exactly is wrong with TP declaring himself moral and altruistic. Enquiring minds want to know.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
olegt:
There's nothing wrong with Matzke remembering that religion isn't the boogey-man it's made out to be by his wannabe peers. In fact, it shows real signs of independent thinking, which would be refreshing. Maybe he's just starting to see through the hype.
And there's nothing wrong with TP declaring himself moral and altruistic, since that's the way he sees himself. And it may very well be true for him. Though I'm a bit surprised that anyone's led such a sheltered life in today's world that they really believe everybody is moral and altruistic, or behaves as if this were the case. I can see why people would like to believe this. But that's just not the way things work here.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
olegt,
Yeah, your being heavily into O'Leary would explain a lot of what you post. Wait, nevermind. I was thinking Timothy Leary here.
I'm the resident Thomas Aquinas? Bwahaha. But really, you want me to explain this? If you can't figure out why blurting out 'I am moral and altruistic' is off-putting, then you've got some of that social autism Vox Day loves to go on about.
But that's just my opinion as a moral, altruistic person. Granted, I could see why you'd disagree, olegt – as someone who is tremendously smart and an independent thinker, I'm well aware of the mistakes and delusions that can plague even professors.
Comment by nullasalus — March 21, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Well, at the risk of sounding crass and anti-good-touchy-feely, I say, who gives a flying fecal fandango about Nick Matzke's views on religion. I sure don't.
Sorry, Bradford, but I don't see the point of this on TT.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 21, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
kornbelt888:
Hi Kornbelt. My thoughts are that like it or not Nick Matzke and Bradley Monton are fairly well known personalities involved in discussions about Intelligent Design. Given that fact surprising positions (Matzke's) are somewhat newsworthy. Matzke's views on religion do not impact my own views and I can safely assume the same about you based on your comment. However, I do think the collective voices of IDists and critics matter to the extent that others tend to generalize about IDists and their critics based on their experiences with them. PZ Myers, Dawkins and their followers have been virulently anti-religious for many years and they have poisoned the discussion well to some extent. Bradley Monton on the other hand is someone I will listen to respectfully despite his atheism. Hostility does have practical consequences. Reasoned dialog does too. I find the subject matters discussed at Telic Thoughts to be intrinsically interesting and to the extent that they can be explored without emotional rancor I believe we all benefit. If Nick moved in that direction then good for him. We still have our disagreements and I'm sure we will both annoy each other at times in the future but for one brief moment in time at least we have some common ground.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
nullasalus,
No, I can't figure it out. That's why I asked you to explain it.
Your explanation: you find TP's declaration off-putting and everyone who does not see it that way is a tard. Ask Theodore Beale.
Did I get it right? Or am I still missing something?
Thanks in advance.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Bradford,
I am surprised that you find Matzke's position newsworthy. Militant atheism is not—and never has been—the position of the NCSE, where he spent a fairly long time.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
olegt,
Quoting myself:
I didn't say 'everyone who does not see it that way is a tard'. You could both see why it would be (by and large) taken as off-putting, yet disagree that it really is. And Vox Day's social autism bit doesn't mean 'they're tards'. It means displaying a poor grasp of pretty simple social conventions. Laugh a little, my friend, it's good for you.
But if you can't even understand why it would/could be taken as off-putting or galling – even if you disagree with the view – what can I say? Don't ask me to explain it, because as near as I can tell, you're… well. You're very special and gifted, olegt. At least that's what a moral, altruistic person like me would say.
Comment by nullasalus — March 21, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
March 21st, 2009 at 11:57 pm
nullasalus,
Let me explain something to you.
TP's mention of morality and altruism was not out of place. Those subjects had been discussed in Matzke's post and the subsequent comments.
Next time you waltz into a thread, be sure to know what people are talking about.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
olegt wrote
Of course not, they're not atheists. They worship Darwin, peace be upon him. They want their acolytes to proselytize in the pews of the infidel churches.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 22, 2009 @ 12:02 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:06 am
olegt,
My comments were dead on, and I stand by them. I resent TP's smug tone, his passive-aggressive antics, and his perpetual rolling out of his favorite, decayed ID chestnuts. As for your cute little switch-up there – I never accused TP's comments of being out of place or off-topic, and you know it. I called him out for being obnoxious. You clearly understand how rolling out 'I am altruistic and moral' style lines are galling, despite the disingenuous song and dance – so I'll take your lame little topic switch as a concession. Much appreciated.
For the record, I don't resent your passive-aggressive antics. I find them to be downright hilarious, especially when they turn out this way.
Comment by nullasalus — March 22, 2009 @ 12:06 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 am
Hi RogerRabbitt,
It's nice to know you are still around.
If you reread my comment, you might notice I didn't single out opponents as the only ones who engage in Group Think. I suggest everyone is susceptible to it, including myself.
There is a reason I post my thoughts in venues where they will be challenged. For example, I defended my favorable opinion of Mike Gene's book on After the Bar Closes.
Speaking of which, have you had a chance to read The Design Matrix yet?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 22, 2009 @ 12:09 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 am
I personally would like to see NCSE supporters walk into mosques and start preaching the Good News about Darwin. You know, help some of our fellow religionists (according to Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, that is) find their way to the One True Light of Natural Selection Plus Random Variation, may it reign forever and ever hyoomen.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 22, 2009 @ 12:10 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 am
nullasalus,
You don't like TP's "smug tone"? Now we're getting somewhere! Well, here's a shocker. I find TP's pronouncements on various subjects grandiose, often mistaken, sometimes unintentionally funny, but not off-putting. Liking or disliking someone's style is subjective, I guess.
As to TP's declaration that he is moral and altruistic, heck, I am joining him in declaring that myself. I am moral and altruistic. It's not galling for an atheist to say that because we hear constantly from the fundies that we are immoral egoists. That is off-putting—to me.
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2009 @ 12:26 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:40 am
olegt,
If my mentioning that I don't like TP's smug tone is 'getting somewhere', then we 'got there' with my first post, since 'obnoxious' and 'self-righteous' were what I made reference to outright.
As for what you consider yourself to be or what you find off-putting – fantastic. Yell it from the rooftops, or don't. I really do not care, for reasons already stated.
In TP's defense, the fact that I find him to be so often insufferably smug and culture-warriorish doesn't mean I don't find his posts interesting at times. We've had pleasant conversations before when he's dropped the act. But smug is smug, and what can I say – I like to call out the smug at times.
Whatever the case, I made my comment to TP and left it at that. There it will lay, because while smug is annoying, it's not THAT big a deal.
Comment by nullasalus — March 22, 2009 @ 12:40 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 am
Hi Joy,
While you may consider it naive of me to attempt to understand how others could rationalize their actions as right and just, I don't see how you objectively understand the interactions without looking at things from their point of view.
While I strongly disagree with a lot of what Bush and Cheney did, I can understand why they thought what they were doing was right and just. I am sickened by the thought of what our country did to the city of Fallujah (e.g. using White Phosphorous chemical weapons), but I can understand why those involved thought it was right and just.
When you say…
My reaction is that it is you who is engaging in wishful thinking. It is absolutely amazing the actions people can and have justified to themselves. Yes, there are those willing to kill hundreds, thousands or even millions of people because they rationalize the right thing to do what is best for their own personal gain and feel justified in doing whatever it takes to make it happen.
I am not saying that everyone (or even most) people are right and just according to some absolute moral standard, I am simply stating what, to me, is the obvious. Most people rationalize their actions as being right and just by their own standards of conduct.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 22, 2009 @ 1:02 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote to Oleg…
Are now admitting your oblique comment about people who "…can be as obnoxiously self-righteous as the most irritating front-pew show-Christians around" was a direct reference to your opinion of me?
If so, why didn't you say so "outright" instead of hiding behind a passive reference?
As you should know by now, I welcome and even encourage people to voice their opinions and challenge mine. I am unimpressed with false humility and whining complaints about a "smug tone".
If you disagree with some of the things I say, then stand up and challenge me.
Nullasalus, if I need to say it, I value your insight in how you look at things differently than I do.
While I would like to say more on this, it is very late and I need to close. So until the next time we cross swords…
Good night.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 22, 2009 @ 1:57 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 am
TP,
Hiding behind? Give me a break. I wasn't being cagey – what I was driving at came across loud and clear, and I made no bones about it when the conversation deepened.
You're unimpressed? That makes two of us. Like I told olegt, I made my comment and consider it over with, because frankly it's a penny ante issue. But if I think your tone is smug and insufferable – and if I feel like throwing a line out about it – I'll speak up. But I'm not about to spend ten exchanges arguing over whether or not your routine is annoying.
There's not much meat in this thread anyway, since general consensus seems to be 'Gee, Nick Matzke is being reasonable on this' with the arguments down to whether or not anyone should care what he thinks.
Comment by nullasalus — March 22, 2009 @ 2:44 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:55 am
Well, exactly. Opinions are two a penny, here. Let's have a thread on the latest developments in Intelligent design or some such. It's been a while.
Comment by Alan Fox — March 22, 2009 @ 7:55 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
nullasalus,
I don't care how you feel about TP. I asked you to explain why you think that describing oneself as moral and altruistic should be seen as "galling" and "off-putting" by everyone. I had good reasons to doubt that because at least two people on this board—Joy and myself—didn't feel that way, hence my question. You failed to justify your position and instead suggested that anyone who doesn't get it is "socially autistic".
Great level of argumentation, nullasalus. Keep up the good work.
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2009 @ 8:41 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 am
Olegt to Nullasalus:
It could be as simple as the fact that he sees noone as rising to that standard. All of us miss the mark to some degree. Whether one would find the moral and altruistic assertion "galling" and "off-putting" is another matter attributable to taste.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2009 @ 9:37 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 am
Confusion over the precise meaning of the word moral would be the most charitable interpretation, Bradford. However, knowing TP, I strongly doubt that he meant to say I am holier than thou. In all likelihood, it was I have a moral compass.
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2009 @ 10:14 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 am
I am a very humble person.
In fact, I am the humblest person here. I am the most humble person I know, and a lot more humble than any of you.
People who are as humble as I am are the best people in the world, you pathetic worms, even though I doubt that you could find anyone as humble as I am.
I'm probably the most humble person on the planet right now. Maybe in all of recorded history.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 22, 2009 @ 10:36 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
LOL!
Good one AngryOldFatMan!!!!
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 22, 2009 @ 10:49 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Olegt referring to TP:
I'll accept that but will direct the remainder of the comment to TP. TP, I suspect your style and thought provoking descriptor stem from some very ingrained attitudes that are not likely to change any time soon but this is as good a time as any to make some remarks about them. The belief that you are an independent thinker and others are group thinkers, needing a nudge to analyze particulars which you bring to their attention, strikes some as arrogant, self-deceiving and patronizing.
Most of us are well aware that our own views are subjective and yet mindful of the fact that others have different perspectives. The fact that x has a perspective and y a different one in no way implies that y has not considered x's point of view. It may very well be the case that y has rejected x's point of view precisely because he has considered it. Moreover, y may have gained some analytical insight that x is blinded to. It is human nature to view others as blinded to something we have insight into. Yet that may also be the case in particular instances which is why generalizations are difficult.
People who post comments in forums like Telic Thoughts tend to differ from population norms in key respects. One of them is thoughtfulness. They may have a number of character flaws and be wrong in their views but they are not usually shallow thinkers. Quite the contrary. They tend to devote more than the usual time and consideration to topics discussed. So when you infer that another is in need of guidance to get themselves out of the box and consider new thoughts you very likely are guilty of assuming a false premise. You are sending messages to those whose nature includes a greater than usual tendency to be introspective with respect to abstract ideas and some not so abstract ones.
On the other hand I believe your approach is eesentially valid with respect to much if not most people who tend to value style over substance and go through life with a minimum of effort devoted to things that do not fall within the purview of personal needs. You have no doubt had success in your business and personal life utilizing the thought provoker approach. Your message comes down to I see what you do not. It's not subtle. It's blatent. For those of us whose opinions diverge from yours because we've considered and rejected rather than ignored certain views, the assumption of the contrary by you can be annoying. Before dispensing with your trademark adage I'd advise you to try and distinguish between the character depicted by Gracie Allen (a very bright and funny woman) and philosophers like Monton, Plantinga and even your fellow TT commenters.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2009 @ 11:10 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
To all,
Can we review what I actually said?
(link)
To Oleg,
Thank you for your support. I find it interesting you are becoming a frequent commenter on Telic Thoughts. I hope you continue to do so.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 22, 2009 @ 11:19 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
I don't have any problem with that. My comments were directed at your general approach.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2009 @ 11:26 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 am
TP:
Evil does not need to be 'understood' as the acting-out of some two-year old's sometimes harmful self-centeredness, and it is not curable with a time-out. While it's a lovely sentiment to give people the cover that comes with your naive assumption that they're moral and altruistic in their own eyes, this is quite often NOT the case. It's a complete waste of time and possibly dangerous to insist that the guard ushering you into the ovens is just doing what he believes is 'right'. Even the Nazis didn't bother with that excuse at Nuremberg. They went with the "just following orders" canard instead.
Whoa. That's all the way to insane, TP! There's nothing "right and just" in the man-made Hell that counts for war, even if leadership DOES believe the cause is right and just. I'll guess you've never fought a war, or seriously studied war. It's not near as glamorous as too many people like to think.
But let me ask you this one (and ignoring idiotic TV shows) – how is torture "right and just?" I don't want excuses or far-fetched self-justifications or even twisted Ludlumesque plot lines. Think Guatemala and El Salvador, the School of the Americas, and the kind of people who go in for this sort of thing. How is torture "right" or "just"?
Hate to inform you of this, TP, but person X's "own personal gain" and self-justifications are irrelevant and quite properly NOT considered in the weighing of crimes, the judgment of evil, or the meting of punishment. Being unable to determine if there's a difference between good and evil might be curable in some sense, but it's not a problem humanity at large suffers from. That humanity at large is able to justify doing evil to promote xenophobic interests or group/cult survival does not (and never has) magically turned evil into good, either. Evil is evil, even when it's used for what somebody calls "good." Means and ends don't always justify each other.
Again, that's naive. Many people – far too many, in all walks of life and at all levels of power – relish evil. Embrace it. Are darned proud of BEING evil. And make no attempt to justify their evil to those they practice evil upon. What would be the point of that, when it's evil one loves?
And before you shoot back the pat response, no. What people love does not necessarily equate to "good," even in their own estimation.
Comment by Joy — March 22, 2009 @ 11:54 am
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
angryoldfatman,
I've found you! For years my quest has been to find the must humble person on the planet, and get them to own up to it.
Nunc dimittis…
Comment by TomG — March 22, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Hi Bradford,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I will try to respond in kind.
You wrote…
First, I am just as susceptible to falling into the Group Think trap as anyone else. This is why I get very nervous when too many people agree with me and tend to avoid those situations.
Second, I agree that "arrogant" is a very appropriate description. And I also understand how this can offend people who maintain the belief that pride is a deadly sin. However, I find it an efficient method to provoking frank and open debates which quickly gets to the key issues in a way the polite mutual-agreeable discussions are incapable of doing.
Third, "patronizing" is an understandable complaint but I do have honest respect and admiration for most people at TT. While I probably don't say it as often as I should, I would hope my attitudes towards people like Joy, DanteDanti, Pez, Mike Gene and others shows that I value their opinions, even when those opinion are in conflict with mine. I offer that it would be "patronizing" to be less than direct and honest in expressing my disagreement. I think most people here are worthy of being treated as full-fledged adults capable of defending themselves.
Fourth, "self-deceiving" is the name of the game, isn't it? Who is deceiving whom? I am not the one hiding my rational or protecting my hypotheses from scrutiny. You claim that you have…
… yet you seem reluctant to expose the reasons for your rejections other than to defer to people like Monton and Plantinga. Personally, I find it difficult to totally and forever reject any view, including the existence of God. I am constantly checking and rechecking myself. I certainly do not let somebody else do my thinking or explaining for me. If I can't personally defend an opinion, it isn't worth having.
For example, when I was challenged to explain why I thought Darwin's Black Box was better than Edge of Evolution I backed up my opinion with logic and quotes from both books. It doesn't matter whether those who disagree with me either ignore or summarily reject my view if they don't subject their counter-opinion to light of day.
I again thank you for starting this thread, because it brought to light a fundamental aspect of the Culture War. I think it would be helpful if there are more recognition that opposing worldviews can be motivated by good intentions on both sides.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 22, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Hi Joy,
I trust you know I respect your opinions no matter how misguided, inappropriate and wrongheaded they are.
Kidding aside, I suggest our differences can be traced to our views on absolute standards of right and wrong. If I remember correctly, you have previously expressed an understanding, and even a tacit agreement, to how I separate ethics from morality.
To me, things like the recent US torture activities were clearly unethical.
As you probably are aware, I have problems accepting the existence of an absolute, universal code of conduct that was handed down from on-high. From my NOMA worldview, there are multiple Truths and multiple philosophical standards of right and wrong.
This doesn't lessen the response to unforgivable acts but, to me, the response is based on an ethical, not moral, basis.
I can understand why homophobes would think it is right and just to kill gays, but I would still give life sentences to those who act on their opinions.
I don't need to demonize my enemies in order to repudiate their actions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 22, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
TP:
"Unethical" is a legal fine point, not a moral judgment. You and I agree on many things, but I see it as hopelessly naive and civilizationally dangerous to pretend that these things are simply a matter of personal taste and current ethics. That just leaves open the possibility that a society will go ahead and embrace evil (as has been known to happen), and that translates into mass murder on genocidal scales. If we are ever to "evolve" past our animalistic tendencies – and we must because we just aren't animalistic enough to be an acceptable critter in natural terms (they don't practice torture for fun and profit, or genocide) – we're going to have to learn the difference between good and evil. Stop pretending they're the same thing looked at from different points of view.
There's no virtue in being so open-minded that your brains fall out, you know. Surely you don't want to find yourself in a position where someone torturing your children must claim your wishy-washy definitions as justification. There is such a thing as evil. I don't understand why people pretend not so.
"On high" in this isn't nearly as high as your horse. The existence or non-existence of God isn't an issue in this if you don't want to commit. Nature itself would glaringly highlight what an unnatural, evil sort of critter we are. What kind of idiotic "natural impetus toward life" would ever produce something as blatantly suicidal as we are? Makes no sense at all.
Yet if you lived in Germany during the 1930s when it was perfectly legal to kill gays, you would have considered it as "ethical" as anything else the government did to make your nation better, right? Or would you have expected the gub'ment to simply acknowledge that you had a "different view of ethics," and debate that in parliament when making these evil laws?
I've demonized no one. I have said evil exists, and some humans embrace it. I have further said that not all of those people believe what they embrace is "good." That many of them love it just because it's evil.
Now, that might be a serious mental health issue. If so, it may be curable at some point. But only if we've got a clear definition and agreement that X is good and Y is evil. Everyone arguing that this is just a legalistic and culturally defined semantic issue is not helping.
Thanks for this exchange, btw. You know I love it when you talk dirty! Still, I am of the opinion that we shouldn't wait for the whole God vs. Nature debate to figure this all out for us, I think we should do our own 'evolving' toward something better than we are. On purpose, because we can.
Comment by Joy — March 22, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
If my memory serves me right, Nick admitted that he was a Theist not long ago. I think he referred to himself as a Theistic Evolutionist. But I'm getting old, and my memory may be playing tricks on me.
Comment by Bilbo — March 22, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Here it is.
Comment by Bilbo — March 22, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Let's re-phrase this, per my original reason for jumping into this thread. Let's assume (just because we can) that what I learned about TMI by being there and doing a certain job allowed me to know something that is objectively TRUE. Say, something like the fact that ongoing iodine-131 releases were scheduled to increase further because the saturated filters had to be changed. They'd finally decayed enough to allow workers to get near them, putting new ones in was the task. This meant increasing releases for the evolution. No way around it.
There's a subcontracted "cover-up expert" on site thinking up ways to make the press and public (that's already been dumped on seriously) believe everything's hunky-dory. He recommends that the [then] every 3-hour helicopter monitoring teams be cut in half in order to "prove" to the press and public that releases are decreasing. The memo is signed off on by two division VPs of the corps involved responsible for such things as protecting workers and the public.
There is objective truth. There is objective falsehood.
"Ethics" in this situation could only have been tied to whether or not the NRC cared to enforce the regulations. They'd been on-site since the beginning actively involved in circumventing the regulations, so that's a moot point. And was a moot point 30 years ago. What they did wrong has way more to do with morality, and in a far more absolute way than any notion of ethics. They were sentencing people to slow, ugly death and they knew it very well. Worse, they knew precisely how they could have prevented it. They all knew what the real criteria were, and the stakes on the table.
What do YOU call someone – an engineer, btw – whose job is to think up ways to circumvent law, regulations and ethics, knowing his cute plans will kill people? I call him evil. I call the same on those who signed off on it, they knew people would die too. This was never one life against another in a desperate situation. It was money, power and greed against innocent people's lives. Money, power and greed won. Innocent lives were lost.
The REASON we have "ethics" and attempt to incorporate them into law and regulation is because there's an awful lot of human beings out there who like un-ethics a lot better than ethics. Specialize in it. Why? Because they embrace evil. No, they don't think it's "good" in a general sense. No, they don't believe they're altruistic or doing "good" things for anyone but themselves and their evil clients.
Some people torture puppies because it's "fun." It's not fun because it's good, it's fun because it's evil.
Comment by Joy — March 22, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 am
Hard Not to Call It Evil
Comment by Joy — March 23, 2009 @ 12:02 am