Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

NS,

What's the reasoning that's taken you from the consequences of beliefs/actions to the character of the people who hold/do them?

Were the doctors who prescribed Thalidomide "bad" people too?

Are you saying that if the doctors who prescribed Thalidomide were told what the effects of Thalidomide were on foetuses and they continued to prescribe Thalidomide, that you would be nit-picking with Thalidomide victims who described those doctors as bad people?

Would you be arguing that the doctors were misguided but not bad people even if they carried on prescribing it while aware of the consequences?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So political moderacy leads to political extremism?

No because that’s a false analogy. Political positions can point to reason and evidence for justification, at least to some meaningful degree – if someone says “privatising the NHS will improve patient outcomes” for example that claim can be tested. 

The religious moderate and the religious extremist by contrast point to exactly the same unverifiable rationale: “but that’s my faith”. If I’m not supposed to reply to the moderate with “so fucking what?” on what basis then can I respond to the extremist in the same way?   

[ProfessorDavey]

So your moderate political views justify the Holocaust. How far across the floor are your feet now that you have shot them both off?

Nope - because I wasn't not born at the time of the holocaust so how would my political view have had any impact.

However I do think that there will have been many broadly moderate people in Germany in the 1930s who were swept along with the Nazis - felt part of that tribe albeit would have been appalled by the holocaust had they known about it at the time. And yes those people did give cover and justification for the extreme politics that lead to the holocaust. It is the danger of populism.

And that is why there are lots of people who attempt to adopt a zero tolerance approach to racism, sexism, homophobia etc - specifically on the basis that allowing and tolerating low level racist, sexist and homophobic behaviours, language etc provides legitimacy to those who go further (well its just the kind of chat you get in the pub) and they in turn give legitimacy to those who take those behaviours to the extreme (she had it coming to her).

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - because I was not born at the time of the holocaust so how would my political view have had any impact.

However I do think that there will have been many broadly moderate people in Germany in the 1930s who were swept along with the Nazis - felt part of that tribe albeit would have been appalled by the holocaust had they known about it at the time. And yes those people did give cover and justification for the extreme politics that lead to the holocaust. It is the danger of populism.

And that is why there are lots of people who attempt to adopt a zero tolerance approach to racism, sexism, homophobia etc - specifically on the basis that allowing and tolerating low level racist, sexist and homophobic behaviours, language etc provides legitimacy to those who go further (well its just the kind of chat you get in the pub) and they in turn give legitimacy to those who take those behaviours to the extreme (she had it coming to her).

Ergo all opinion leads to the Holocaust.

[ProfessorDavey]

So some racists are good?

Where did I say that.

Racist attitudes and behaviours are, in my opinion, bad.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No because that’s a false analogy. Political positions can point to reason and evidence for justification, at least to some meaningful degree – if someone says “privatising the NHS will improve patient outcomes” for example that claim can be tested. 

The religious moderate and the religious extremist by contrast point to exactly the same unverifiable rationale: “but that’s my faith”. If I’m not supposed to reply to the moderate with “so fucking what?” on what basis then can I respond to the extremist in the same way?   

They are just opinions in the end. They are just as subjective. So the analogy works

[Nearly Sane]

Where did I say that.

Racist attitudes and behaviours are, in my opinion, bad.

And yet that was the logic of your post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

No because that’s a false analogy. Political positions can point to reason and evidence for justification, at least to some meaningful degree – if someone says “privatising the NHS will improve patient outcomes” for example that claim can be tested. 

The religious moderate and the religious extremist by contrast point to exactly the same unverifiable rationale: “but that’s my faith”. If I’m not supposed to reply to the moderate with “so fucking what?” on what basis then can I respond to the extremist in the same way?   

Why would a religious moderate who was, say an MP and a Doctor refer totally to her religion on the question of privatising the NHS?

[ProfessorDavey]

Ergo all opinion leads to the Holocaust.

Err - no they don't. But people who hitch their cart to a tribe that includes extremists and feel unable to speak out against that extremist for fear of devaluing the 'tribe' can and do give justification and cover for those extremists to bring their extremist behaviours to the fore.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

That's very interesting - what you wrote is just white noise to me but I can still find it interesting that you believe that. If society has decided that the terms "boy" and "girl" are meaningless white noise, ok,…

That’s a straw man – I didn’t say that were “meaningless white noise" at all. What I said was that there cannot be objective meanings that are clearly delineated because gender identities exist on spectrums. 

…but regardless of the spectrum, as a woman, I would be uncomfortable having to deal with naked male genitalia in my face, especially if it was aroused and erect. If I wanted to join a nudist colony, I would, but I actually want to be in an environment where I get privacy and choices about whether i have to encounter naked men.

As a man, so would I (!), but that’s not the point here. I was simply saying that you cannot just put people in neatly defined, binary definitional boxes (boy vs girl etc) because there are all sorts of gradations between the two. The practical implications of this are a different matter.     

Do you think society should do away with single sex segregation on the basis that we're all on a spectrum? Or do you think the Equalities Act 2010 should be amended to change the terms used for single sex facilities? Instead of boys and girls rugby it should be male and female rugby and mixed rugby or should we adopt a trans lobby term to be inclusive and call it cis boys rugby and cis girls rugby and mixed rugby which is where the trans rugby players would go; and instead of a boys school and girls school everything should be re-labelled to cis-boys school and cis-girls school and mixed schools. Because I believe the separate facilities came about for reasons such as female rugby players would get flattened and seriously injured if they were tackled by a male rugby player, or because 99% of sex offenders in prison are male. So they realised there were actually 2 separate, distinct categories and an objective difference between the 2 categories and that the more vulnerable category deserved to be safeguarded.

See above. Again, you’re conflating a question about definitions with practical measures. 

If I said the moderate trans people bear a terrible dogma, because their faith claims about gender give moral cover for the coercive sex and rape of lesbians by extremist trans women who argue that being picky about genitals is transphobic, is that an ok thing to say?

No because it’s a false analogy. What “faith” claims do you think are in play here? 

[Nearly Sane]

Err - no they don't. But people who hitch their cart to a tribe that includes extremists and feel unable to speak out against that extremist for fear of devaluing the 'tribe' can and do give justification and cover for those extremists to bring their extremist behaviours to the fore.

Err yes - You have political opinions which can be tied to a tribe that supported the Holocaust.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

NS,

No because that’s a false analogy. Political positions can point to reason and evidence for justification, at least to some meaningful degree – if someone says “privatising the NHS will improve patient outcomes” for example that claim can be tested.

That statement is too simplistic. The results of the testing would depend on how you define "improve patient outcomes". What some people consider as an improvement will be disputed by others. Terms such as "good" and "bad" and "worse" and better" are not objective. People will use some reasons to justify why they label something "good" or "improved" and someone else will point to the same reasons or different reasons to justify why they label the same outcome as "bad" or "worse". They each have their own opposing beliefs about what can be considered an improvement.

The religious moderate and the religious extremist by contrast point to exactly the same unverifiable rationale: “but that’s my faith”. If I’m not supposed to reply to the moderate with “so fucking what?” on what basis then can I respond to the extremist in the same way?   

No one really cares how you respond to people's beliefs about god's existence or what god wants people to do, any more than we care about how you respond to people's beliefs about what is good or bad. If someone believes that higher taxation is "good", your response would presumably be "so fucking what if you believe it is good"

What we are concerned about is the response to arguments for why they think something is a desirable outcome or not. The religious person like the political person comes up reasoning and justification on why they think a particular action is good or bad for society and you can respond to the arguments and reasoning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Are you saying that if the doctors who prescribed Thalidomide were told what the effects of Thalidomide were on foetuses and they continued to prescribe Thalidomide, that you would be nit-picking with Thalidomide victims who described those doctors as bad people?

No, but what does that straw man have to do with anything?

Would you be arguing that the doctors were misguided but not bad people even if they carried on prescribing it while aware of the consequences?

Again, what’s with the straw man here?

The doctors were acting on the best available medical advice at the time. You cannot just assert that the consequences of their actions nonetheless made them “bad” people.       

[ProfessorDavey]

Err yes - You have political opinions which can be tied to a tribe that supported the Holocaust.

Firstly I don't think I can be blamed for something that happened before I was born.

Secondly it isn't about the political opinions, but about being part of the tribe. That's the whole point - the tribal aspect is critical, hence why moderate tories often keep quite about more extreme opinions if they come from other tories, but would be vitriolic against similar opinions if they came fro a Labour politician (and vice versa).

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly I don't think I can be blamed for something that happened before I was born.

Secondly it isn't about the political opinions, but about being part of the tribe. That's the whole point - the tribal aspect is critical, hence why moderate tories often keep quite about more extreme opinions if they come from other tories, but would be vitriolic against similar opinions if they came fro a Labour politician (and vice versa).

I'm not blaming you for the Holocaust. You are blaming my mother for the Spanish Inquisition.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

That’s a straw man – I didn’t say that were “meaningless white noise" at all. What I said was that there cannot be objective meanings that are clearly delineated because gender identities exist on spectrums.

If you can't define it coherently then it is white noise. At least that's your argument in relation to gods. At least try to be logically consistent in your arguments. You say gender exists. How do you define the different genders - what are the criteria for whether you belong to any gender?

As a man, so would I (!), but that’s not the point here. I was simply saying that you cannot just put people in neatly defined, binary definitional boxes (boy vs girl etc) because there are all sorts of gradations between the two. The practical implications of this are a different matter.

Define the gradations. What are the criteria used and does everyone agree on these criteria and do these criteria exist. Can we objectively measure these criteria and gradations? Is it testable and demonstrable? If it isn't then why take unevidenced beliefs seriously or privilege them. If a man says I believe I am a woman, then presumably my response should be "so fucking what, if you can't demonstrate it objectively, then why should I privilege your belief or fairy stories about your identity?"   

See above. Again, you’re conflating a question about definitions with practical measures.

The definitions are meaningless if there is no actual criteria for defining gender.
 

No because it’s a false analogy. What “faith” claims do you think are in play here?

No it isn't a false analogy. They are propagating the dogma and faith claim that transwomen are women and that being picky about genitals and same sex attraction is transphobic.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

They are just opinions in the end. They are just as subjective. So the analogy works

Your weasel phrase there was “in the end”. In the end (ie, ultimately) then nothing is knowably objective or subjective. This is just the going nuclear argument though – for practical, real world, everyday purposes we have the usefully different terms “subjective” and “objective”. I can take the claim “privatising the NHS will improve patient outcomes” for example and test it, either by running the experiment or by taking data from places that have. This claim is objectively testable.

“I justify action X because that’s what God wants” on the hand is just a faith claim, it’s subjective but that’s all it is.

That’s why your analogy fails: faith claims are epistemically identical regardless of their conclusions; evidence-based claims on the other hand are not.         

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 

Your weasel phrase there was “in the end”. In the end (ie, ultimately) then nothing is knowably objective or subjective. This is just the going nuclear argument though – for practical, real world, everyday purposes we have the usefully different terms “subjective” and “objective”. I can take the claim “privatising the NHS will improve patient outcomes” for example and test it, either by running the experiment or by taking data from places that have. This claim is objectively testable.

“I justify action X because that’s what God wants” on the hand is just a faith claim, it’s subjective but that’s all it is.

That’s why your analogy fails: faith claims are epistemically identical regardless of their conclusions; evidence-based claims on the other hand are not.         

Claims about what is good are just as subjective, That you are unwilling to face that is very sad.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

No, but what does that straw man have to do with anything?

Again, what’s with the straw man here?

The doctors were acting on the best available medical advice at the time. You cannot just assert that the consequences of their actions nonetheless made them “bad” people.     

It's not a straw man. You and Sam Harris are telling the moderate religious that they bear a terrible dogma because they are providing religious cover for the extremists. Presumably you think religious extremism is a bad thing? You are warning the moderates about the consequences of their moderate beliefs. Despite your warnings if the moderates still refuse to abandon their religious activism, no matter how moderate, you seem to be saying that the moderates are helping perpetuate religious extremism.

So I asked the question, if the doctors prescribing Thalidomide were warned of the terrible consequences, and yet they persisted in prescribing it, would you say what they did was good or bad.

If you are arguing that doing bad things does not make you a bad person, fair enough. It's like the argument that telling gay people that gay sex is bad in the hope that they will stop practising it, is not the same as saying gay people are bad if they carry on having gay sex.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

NS,
 

Your weasel phrase there was “in the end”. In the end (ie, ultimately) then nothing is knowably objective or subjective. This is just the going nuclear argument though – for practical, real world, everyday purposes we have the usefully different terms “subjective” and “objective”. I can take the claim “privatising the NHS will improve patient outcomes” for example and test it, either by running the experiment or by taking data from places that have. This claim is objectively testable.

No it isn't because "improving" is not objectively testable. It's a subjective claim that improvements have been made because any objective measures still need to be subjectively assessed as to whether they are "good" or "bad" outcomes.

“I justify action X because that’s what God wants” on the hand is just a faith claim, it’s subjective but that’s all it is.

How is it any worse than I justify X because that's what I want - which is the atheist's position. Surely my response should be s"o fucking what, who cares what you want"

That’s why your analogy fails: faith claims are epistemically identical regardless of their conclusions; evidence-based claims on the other hand are not.

The analogy does not fail because it is identical to if an atheist or a political activist said "I justify action X because that's what I want".

If you want to compare like with like, then we have to analyse the moral reasoning of a religious argument and analyse the moral reasoning of a political argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

If you can't define it coherently then it is white noise. At least that's your argument in relation to gods. At least try to be logically consistent in your arguments. You say gender exists.

“Coherently” and “precisely” are not the same thing. I can tell you coherently what a sandcastle is; I cannot tell you precisely when it stops being a sandcastle and becomes something else. Do you think the term “sandcastle” is therefore white noise too? Why not?

How do you define the different genders - what are the criteria for whether you belong to any gender?

How do you define sandcastle – what are the criteria for whether the pile of sand constitutes a sandcastle?   

Of course genders (and sandcastles) exist. I’m just saying though that the criteria to delineate them are blurry, imprecise, changeable etc.   
 

Define the gradations. What are the criteria used and does everyone agree on these criteria and do these criteria exist. Can we objectively measure these criteria and gradations? Is it testable and demonstrable? If it isn't then why take unevidenced beliefs seriously or privilege them. If a man says I believe I am a woman, then presumably my response should be "so fucking what, if you can't demonstrate it objectively, then why should I privilege your belief or fairy stories about your identity?"

Blimey. See above – for the most part gender definitions are obvious and generally understood, just as the definitions for sandcastles are for the most part obvious and generally understood. Sometimes though the lines blur (hermaphrodites for example) so the conventional understandings fail us and we have to find new meaning for practical application purposes. If you want to talk about those practical applications (about which I make no claims to having the answers by the way) by all means do so, but for the purpose of this conversation I don’t need to set out “the criteria” – just that whatever they might be, they’re not precisely identifiable.       

The definitions are meaningless if there is no actual criteria for defining gender.

I don’t know why you keep saying this. Imprecise definitions can still be meaningful – indeed they often are. 
 

No it isn't a false analogy. They are propagating the dogma and faith claim that transwomen are women and that being picky about genitals and same sex attraction is transphobic.

And “they” justify their positions with “because that’s my faith”, or with reason and argument? You may not agree with the reasons and arguments “they” deploy, but “they’re” a long way from “because that’s my faith”. 

[Nearly Sane]

 

Of course genders (and sandcastles) exist. I’m just saying though that the criteria to delineate them are blurry, imprecise, changeable etc.   
 

Gender is regressive patriarchal woo. Sex exists. There are two.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,
 

“Coherently” and “precisely” are not the same thing. I can tell you coherently what a sandcastle is; I cannot tell you precisely when it stops being a sandcastle and becomes something else. Do you think the term “sandcastle” is therefore white noise too? Why not?

Ok so tell me coherently what a sandcastle is. And while you are at it tell me coherently what sand is and what a castle is. And then tell me how it is coherent if you don't have any criteria to determine whether something is sand or a castle.

How do you define sandcastle – what are the criteria for whether the pile of sand constitutes a sandcastle?

You tell me - it's your example.   

Of course genders (and sandcastles) exist. I’m just saying though that the criteria to delineate them are blurry, imprecise, changeable etc.

So on what basis do they exist if you can't define them - if you don't know when something starts or stops being a sandcastle then how can you justify your statement that sandcastles exist?
 

Blimey. See above – for the most part gender definitions are obvious and generally understood, just as the definitions for sandcastles are for the most part obvious and generally understood. Sometimes though the lines blur (hermaphrodites for example) so the conventional understandings fail us and we have to find new meaning for practical application purposes. If you want to talk about those practical applications (about which I make no claims to having the answers by the way) by all means do so, but for the purpose of this conversation I don’t need to set out “the criteria” – just that whatever they might be, they’re not precisely identifiable.

See above. If there is no criteria to test when sandcastles and women start existing and stop existing, how do you justify the statement that women or sandcastles exist? Hermaphrodites are classified by biological definitions - people can't just claim to be hermaphrodites and we have to take their word for it.

I don’t know why you keep saying this. Imprecise definitions can still be meaningful – indeed they often are.

Yes the imprecise definition of "gods" can be very meaningful. Glad we agree.
 

And “they” justify their positions with “because that’s my faith”, or with reason and argument? You may not agree with the reasons and arguments “they” deploy, but “they’re” a long way from “because that’s my faith”.

No they justify their argument with "this feels morally right because it makes me feel good and included". To which the response should be "So fucking what" right?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not blaming you for the Holocaust.

Pleased to hear it.

You are blaming my mother for the Spanish Inquisition.

Really?!? I'm struggling to see how that is possible given that the Spanish Inquisition took place centuries ago. Your mother must be very old.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet that was the logic of your post.

No it wasn't.