Videos and criticisms

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:33 pm

Here's an idea for a topic: links to videos with criticisms of them.

I'll start with The Rabbi, linked to by Alex Jacob on another thread.

The first thing I'll note, is that the mindlessness of the rabbi's responses are virtually identical to what you will hear from just about any Christian priest.

For example,

My theology is that God is goodness, goodness is God, and lots of things happen in the world that are not good. And so my theology is constantly being tested.

:-) . . . (blankness)

Next sentence:

Everything is a miracle.

So all the badness in the world is a miracle. And the holocaust was a miracle.

The only way to reconcile these first two statements in any sensible way is that all things in the world are in fact God, including all the badness.

But does he say this? No. Does he think this? Who can say, from this video, whether he thinks at all?

Next comment, (paraphrased).

God told Abraham to kill his son. Then he told Abraham not to kill his son. Therefore it is a great sin for us to be sacrificing our children in Iraq.

. . . . Hmmm.

Next,

I want to substitute the idea that God is a person for the idea that God is a power or a process.

So it seems that he's progressing from the mentality of a three-year-old to that of a four-year-old.

Is this real progression? Or is there some other motive?

There are religions in which the belief in God is not required. But in Judaism it is required - as far as I understand it.

. . . Another completely meaningless statement.

It's like saying, "Other people believe that, but I believe this, so far as I know."

(paraphrase)

We need rationality, not belief. Religion must be in synch with science.

It seems to me that this rabbi is being dragged kicking and screaming by the modern world to abandon previously held ridiculous beliefs just for the sake of mere survival.

It just seems kind of sad to hear an old and beaten man conceding that, yes, rationality might indeed count for something.

Ataraxia · Post by **Ataraxia** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:53 pm

Kevin Solway wrote: It just seems kind of sad to hear an old and beaten man conceding that, yes, rationality might indeed count for something.

His rationality seems very fleeting though.

He spends most of the video declaring we must not personify God yet still cant resist declaring we must spend our time thinking about "God's kindness,justice, love"--of whom do you speak rabbi?

He's all at sea,between a rock and a hard place(to mix metaphors)

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:50 am

Here's an idea for a topic: links to videos with criticisms of them.

Really? This is what a sage finds worthwhile, finding easy marks and mocking them? For what purpose?

It's like coming across a lousy old conjurer fumbling a trick in a street performance for nickels, and shouting, "I saw the card up your sleeve!"

Worse, this is like going out in the morning, looking for lousy old conjurers.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:31 am

The videos don't have to be of easy marks. Lets track down some Adya vids and invite Nat over and...........actually, nevermind.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:48 pm

Carl G wrote:easy marks

Yes, that one was easy.

Show me some difficult ones.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:23 am

Solway wrote: Show me some difficult ones.

Queerer than we can Suppose

When I get some free time I might share my thoughts on this one.

Alex Jacob · Post by **Alex Jacob** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 am

I posted that video only because I wanted to demonstrate to a Jew-Hater that some Jews are opposed to the war in Iraq.

But here's the video that contains, encapsulated, all views and ideas worth considering.

Your thoughts, Kevin?

;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJfiRAd540Y

brad walker · Post by **brad walker** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:08 pm

Cory Duchesne wrote:Queerer than we can Suppose

When I get some free time I might share my thoughts on this one.

Bump.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:07 am

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:00 am

I would have agreed, except I am always suspect of anti-religious atheists who have nothing to say about Jews---not even the ability to recognise the immutable affiliation of the term with religion!

I have watched the first five, and naught in that regard.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:13 am

The first one had him saying that religion, the prime source of hatred in this world, should be treated with hatred. I zoned out after that: he's clearly missing another source of hatred.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:21 am

That's some boring stuff, Kevin, but I suppose to each his own.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:22 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:The first one had him saying that religion, the prime source of hatred in this world, should be treated with hatred. I zoned out after that: he's clearly missing another source of hatred.

Ah, Trevor...

:) It's still religion, reckons I.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:23 pm

I was very interested in Christopher Hitchens' debate with Dinesh D'Souza. In it, Dinesh asks for a reason to believe in the existence of God:

How can we reasonably think God exists? Let me ask you this question: Scientists who look at the universe ask themselves this question, "Why does the universe have the rules that it does? Why does the universe operate according to the particular dials and parameters it has? What if those dials and parameters were a little different?" Scientists who look at that said, "If you change these parameters even an infinitesimal amount, if the gravitational force were slightly different or the strong nuclear force or the weak electro force... we would not have this universe, we would not have life, we would not be here having this debate." Now, what is your explanation for how we live in such a fine-tuned universe? It would seem to suggest a fine-tuner, or designer. Darwinism is hopeless here, because it's not accounting for the universe but only transitions among life. So, what is your rational theory on why we live in a finely-tuned universe?

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boH_tJ0mCrU.

I found this debate interesting because I've been wondering why so many people are quick to see in the intricacy and order of reality the strongest evidence for the hand of a fine-tuner or designer-type God.

Hitchens' reply:

A chasm of tautology yawns at the feet of all who go in for this argument. Richard Dawkins once said to me that he thought it was the most interesting argument that he'd so far heard or encountered in all the debates we've had with the faithful, and it is, because there's something extraordinary about it. And there's something that appeals to us, because anything that says to us, "You might not have been here, but you are - so that must be something majestic," is obviously appealing to us. It's sometimes known as anthropocentric.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:33 pm

Kelly, I didn't watch the video. From your description of it though, the simple assumptions underlying this argument are that humans, life as we know it, and this current form of universe, are inherently special somehow. I'd argue(sometimes) that this perceived specialness is an egotistical projection on the part of some humans.

If the laws of nature were a little bit different, perhaps humans wouldn't exist - "But oh my God! Humans are so special, and if humans didn't exist the universe would no longer be special! Therefore since humans do exist, the laws that led to the creation of humans must be special too! All this specialness makes me think something mysterious, and special, is going on!"* (the people saying this are running around crazily like headless chickens, thus my use of exclamation marks.)

If the laws of nature had been different, and had led to the creation of beings that were completely alien and unrecognizable to human minds, those beings may think the exact same thing "We're so special! Therefore these laws of nature are special too!"

Throwing a six with a die is just as likely as throwing a two, but when you highly value the six it can seem pretty darn special when it occurs.

*(probably similar to the internal dialogue of Bruce McAvaney at church)

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:55 pm

I'd argue(sometimes) that this perceived specialness is an egotistical projection on the part of some humans.

Yes, I agree.

It's like a solid brick-wall that blocks out the dangerous thought that conscious beings cannot evolve out of chaos and chance. Dangerous thoughts such as, the self isn't planned and sustained by force of intelligence; the self is one of countless accidental by-products.

Strange, isn't it, that people find it alarming to be totally responsible; and totally free of responsibility?

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:05 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:Strange, isn't it, that people find it alarming to be totally responsible; and totally free of responsibility?

Strange compared to what? Strange compared to an alternate universe with different laws where people didn't find it alarming, perhaps? ;)

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:50 am

Kelly,

You subscribe to the dangerous thought of one alternative, I may subscribe to the dangerous thought of another, but aren't these thoughts just beliefs in ideas? Isn't the true answer to be found in the realm of the empirical and, as we are talking of the timeless and vast, probably the unknowable? Why all the fuss about origins of intelligent life?

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:47 am

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Solway wrote: Show me some difficult ones.
Queerer than we can Suppose

When I get some free time I might share my thoughts on this one.

It was quite refreshing, I thought, and made me miss all the lectures and symposia I haunted back in the day. When I was at BU, I used to traipse around MIT and Harvard just to sit in and listen to the talking heads.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:13 am

Brokenhead,

brokenhead wrote:You subscribe to the dangerous thought of one alternative, I may subscribe to the dangerous thought of another,

You're a Christian who holds strongly to the evidence-free and reason-absent assumption that the Christian God exists (as usually defined). I'm an individual holding strongly to the reasoned conclusion that the Christian God cannot possibly exist. Extremely different alternatives - one is dangerous to reason, the other to unreason.

aren't these thoughts just beliefs in ideas?

Yes. They are both beliefs (ie. ideas considered to be reliable). But only one of the alternatives we have here, really is reliable.

Isn't the true answer to be found in the realm of the empirical

I'm not sure what you mean by this question. That a reasonable person ought to use empirical evidence as bases for all beliefs? Or that the Christian God's non-existence is not proven by logic?

and, as we are talking of the timeless and vast, probably the unknowable?

I don't follow you. Are you saying that the Christian God ("timeless and vast") exists in a realm where knowledge is excluded?

Why all the fuss about origins of intelligent life?

It's in character for a reasonable person to rely on reason to know what makes things, and himself or herself. Slipping into an anthropocentric view is, as Jason pointed out, an egotistical projection. This is not a disparagement of anyone who does believe in ideas without evidence or reason, but it is the truth about the nature of their beliefs.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:36 am

Kelly Jones wrote:Brokenhead,

No. Carl.

brokenhead wrote:
You subscribe to the dangerous thought of one alternative, I may subscribe to the dangerous thought of another,
You're a Christian who holds strongly to the evidence-free and reason-absent assumption that the Christian God exists (as usually defined).

I am not and do not.

I'm an individual holding strongly to the reasoned conclusion that the Christian God cannot possibly exist. Extremely different alternatives - one is dangerous to reason, the other to unreason.

Fine but I didn't think that's what we were talking about. You said:

"It's like a solid brick-wall that blocks out the dangerous thought that conscious beings cannot evolve out of chaos and chance. Dangerous thoughts such as, the self isn't planned and sustained by force of intelligence; the self is one of countless accidental by-products."

The dangerous-thought alternatives of which I thought you were speaking were 1) the self evolved out of chaos and chance, and 2) it -- the self, and by extension humanity -- didn't.

aren't these thoughts just beliefs in ideas?
Yes. They are both beliefs (ie. ideas considered to be reliable). But only one of the alternatives we have here, really is reliable.

Why? Why is one of the alternatives reliable? Isn't our origin necessarily in the realm of the unknown and unknowable?

Isn't the true answer to be found in the realm of the empirical
I'm not sure what you mean by this question. That a reasonable person ought to use empirical evidence as bases for all beliefs? Or that the Christian God's non-existence is not proven by logic?

Our origin, the origin of the self, of selfhood itself. Wouldn't the answer, if it can be known, be found in the empirical world -- being as it is, I could argue, of the empirical -- rather than in logic? I mean, logic tells us we are all part of the One, which is ultimately true, but here we are speaking of our individuation.

and, as we are talking of the timeless and vast, probably the unknowable?
I don't follow you. Are you saying that the Christian God ("timeless and vast") exists in a realm where knowledge is excluded?

I do not speak of "the Christian God" at all. I speak of that which is beyond our understanding of Reality -- which I propose may well include the origin of the self, the origin of selfhood, and the origin of the species. But perhaps you were not speaking of this at all.

Perhaps this was your conversation with Broken, and I broke in lacking proper context.

Why all the fuss about origins of intelligent life?
It's in character for a reasonable person to rely on reason to know what makes things, and himself or herself. Slipping into an anthropocentric view is, as Jason pointed out, an egotistical projection. This is not a disparagement of anyone who does believe in ideas without evidence or reason, but it is the truth about the nature of their beliefs.

I don't follow. I asked you why you were concerned about the origins of intelligent life. You reply by defending reason?

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:21 pm

Carl: I am not and do not.

Sorry!

Why is one of the alternatives reliable?

Unlimited causation is the only reliable alternative, because the other says there is a single cause of many things, which is false.

Isn't our origin necessarily in the realm of the unknown and unknowable?

Once you know some causes, you know all causes.

I mean, logic tells us we are all part of the One, which is ultimately true, but here we are speaking of our individuation.

Individuals are all parts of the One. So the true answer is found in the logical realm (to the question, "What makes us?").

I asked you why you were concerned about the origins of intelligent life.

It's very interesting to me, to think about why we discriminate so unfairly between ourselves and other things - or other times, or other realities.

Oh, I have another motive too: I like Hitchens' simplicity and directness. Recently I had the same discussion on the fine-tuning of the Universe but didn't achieve Hitchens' cut-throat level. I was glad to find a better solution.

Ataraxia · Post by **Ataraxia** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:43 am

Jason wrote:
*(probably similar to the internal dialogue of Bruce McAvaney at church)

Bruce spells it differently: "Speshal" :)

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:07 pm

Kevin,

This guy is impressive:

Christopher Hitchens is quite interesting, as he possesses quite a bit of character. He is your typical British rationalist. With his posh accent, his witty jokes, his cigarettes, his slight obesity, which reveals a history of food abuse, and his red face caused by his love of scotch on the rocks.

However, I respect him because he makes a fairly thorough criticism of the negative affects of organized religion on the world. But if I had to pick out his biggest mental shortcoming, it would have to be his defense of the bush administration to spread democracy in the middle-east through the Iraqi invasion.

He is sort of caught in the middle as an intellectual. His primary weapon to attack irrationality should be reason, and not the gun. The gun should only be an extreme exception in rare circumstances when all diplomacy fails, but he takes a far too active stance of military invasion as a means to do some utilitarian good. And I’ll admit that in some of my darkest hours, I’ve flirted with some fairly violent fantasies towards irrational behavior, but in hindsight, I have always been able to see the emotionalism behind my cognition.

So the irony with Hitchens that that he has a similar degree of hatred as the religious fanatics who are attached to their ideology, but Hitchens cannot see it in himself either. Although, it is not on the same scale, Hitchens battles with a certain amount of hatred towards those forces that threaten democratic secular nations. One might suggest that Hitchens is emotionally attached to the ideals of secularism, democracy and capitalism in general.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:27 pm

Ryan Rudolph wrote:However, I respect him because he makes a fairly thorough criticism of the negative affects of organized religion on the world. But if I had to pick out his biggest mental shortcoming, it would have to be his defense of the bush administration to spread democracy in the middle-east through the Iraqi invasion.

Hitchens himself sees it more as a battle between reason (relatively) and unreason. A battle between freedom (thinking for yourself) and slavery (to religious dogma).

He is sort of caught in the middle as an intellectual. His primary weapon to attack irrationality should be reason, and not the gun. The gun should only be an extreme exception in rare circumstances when all diplomacy fails, but he takes a far too active stance of military invasion as a means to do some utilitarian good.

Sometimes it's not possible to use reason against your opponent. For example, reason is unlikely to have worked against Hitler.

So the irony with Hitchens that that he has a similar degree of hatred as the religious fanatics who are attached to their ideology, but Hitchens cannot see it in himself either.

He admits that he hates religious irrationality, and wants to stamp it out. There certainly appears to be some irrational emotionalism in that hatred, but exactly how much there is is not easy to ascertain.

Although, it is not on the same scale, Hitchens battles with a certain amount of hatred towards those forces that threaten democratic secular nations. One might suggest that Hitchens is emotionally attached to the ideals of secularism, democracy and capitalism in general.

The way I see it is that he is emotionally attached to reason and truth, and that he sees secularism, democracy, and freedom of speech and action, as the best way to promote reason and truth.

Here's another interesting debate, this time with a rabbi:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

GENIUS FORUMS

Videos and criticisms

Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Christopher Hitchens

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms

Re: Videos and criticisms