h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Jank,

cd's arrived thanks. I'll give them a listen and try to figure out which was done by the vocalist/guitarist on the prescribed meds and which on the proscribed. I realise you probably told me already but I've forgotten.

Jank,

I've listened to both cd's now. I'd just like to say, dude, you can rock!

I'll give them another listen and say more later...

Keenan Malik is on Start the Week.

Morning psi

Thanks for Malik tip. Should be interesting.

I am now the proud owner of a shiny new boxer tourer which I need to transport to the heart of the Evil Empire.

I have decided to do a Pirsig run. So I may be largely AFK for about a month from next week.

On slack cutting:

'I am more pro theist than you are Bx4. '

Not a claim I had anticipated given out prior debate on the delusion thread.

However, possibly true in the sense that I may be less tolerant of YECS and IDISTS and there juju 'science' though I would say I am equally tough on the neo-atheists whose use of science is equally suspect.

'...and I'd say I was fairly neutral.'

Debatable, perhaps but not really the point I was trying to get at.

I don't think I am neutral and to explain why let me begin with two assumptions:

1. The basis of the belief system of the theist is faith.

2. The basis of the belief system of the non-theist is (supposedly) evidence and reason.

Malik interesting. His new book seems to be in part an expansion of his essay 'Race, pluralism and the meaning of difference'

Largely AFK today

bsy

Mods were slow today.

'Not a claim I had anticipated given out prior debate on the delusion thread.'

You claim to cut theists more slack than atheists because atheists ought to know better. My view is that each has a sustainable position regarding how to navigate through existence, including the odd abyss, water hazard or bunker. And also that there are those from each stance, theist and atheist, who try to have things both ways, who try to run beyond their remit. In acknowledging that both are capable in principle of being aware of the limits of their stances, I am recognizing that there is no necessary deficit on the theist side in terms of what they ought to know. Therefore I value them more highly than you do.

you offered these assumptions:

"1. The basis of the belief system of the theist is faith.

2. The basis of the belief system of the non-theist is (supposedly) evidence and reason."

But the problem with this starts with the notion of 'basis'. Looking first at 2, we both recognise as atheists that a justification of the use of evidence and reason in terms of evidence and reason is circular. Similarly, turning to 1, I think it more likely that faith is a label for a part of the process already arrived at rather than its basis. But that we might debate.

hi psi

First, apart from the vagaries of moderators, let me apologise for delayed replies. I am fairly busy at the moment and will only become more so as I prepare for and embark on my Pirsig run,so replies will become even more intermittent and delayed over the next few weeks.

Also, somewhat against my better judgment, I have allowed myself to be sucked into a debate on the 5live board about the basis of Christian morality and in true TAFE fashion I may be about to deploy Euthyphro,

Anyway to the lists:

'You claim to cut theists more slack than atheists because atheists ought to know better'

Not precisely. My position with regards to theists is essentially that expressed by Isaac Asimov:

'The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.'

So technically I am an apatheist rather than an atheist, I suppose

However, this aside the supernaturalists generally claim that 'faith' forms the basis of their belief system. Faith is non-rational so there is no point demanding an evidence and reason based justification of their beliefs. Therefore I cut them slack to the extent of not demanding that they do so.

(Of course if they do try to use evidence and reason to justify their position then they are fair game and no slack is cut)

My position with regard to naturalists is that if they claim to operate using evidence and reason then I cut themless slack if they use rhetorical tricks, sophistry, logical fallacies or their own version of 'juju' science rather than reason and evidence to argue their position.

I also cut them less slack if they fail to apply rational analysis to their own belief systems with the same rigour that they deploy it against supernatural belief systems.

'My view is that each has a sustainable position regarding how to navigate through existence, including the odd abyss, water hazard or bunker.'

I don't disagree with this to the extent that each is a response to the existential predicament which relies on building respectively 'supernaturalist' or 'naturalist' mythologies.

Personally, I regard both positions equally as forms of what Camus calls 'philosophical suicide' and I have specific issues when someone who claims to be a rationalist appears to need such a mythology.

(However that gets us into the whole methodological naturalism/metaphysical naturalism and phenomena/noumena/ 'things in themselves' issues and those are really whole separate debatesreally a whole separate debate)

I don't really see why these mythologies are necessary but I am neutral with respect to their comparative merits.

'In acknowledging that both are capable in principle of being aware of the limits of their stances, I am recognizing that there is no necessary deficit on the theist side in terms of what they ought to know. Therefore I value them more highly than you do.'

The only problem here is that I don't think I have suggested that the non-rational a belief in 'gods or other objects of faith' is a 'necessary deficit'.

To be honest I am not sure what this means as I don't see a non-rational belief system as deficient compared to that of the naturalist

My position is simply that because their belief system has a explicitly non-rational foundation I see no reason to expect them , contrary to the often strident demands of some atheists, that the provide a 'reason and evidence' based justification of their belief system.


'"But the problem with this starts with the notion of 'basis'."

Indeed. I may have been unclear. I was not stating *my* assumptions but rather rehearsing what seemed to be those of the supernaturalist and naive naturalist respectively.

'we both recognise as atheists that a justification of the use of evidence and reason in terms of evidence and reason is circular.'

Indeed, as you say, we agree on this.

However this does not preclude using reason and evidence to analyse belief systems which *claim* to be based on evidence and reason.

'Similarly, turning to 1, I think it more likely that faith is a label for a part of the process already arrived at rather than its basis. But that we might debate.'

I have some difficulty here.

Most supernaturalists seem to claim 'faith' as the irreducible foundation of their belief system and that it is not simply an extremely strong belief in the existence of god or other objects of faith.

My problem is simply that I have absolutely no clue as to what 'faith' is or how it is supposed to work and no believer has been able to explain it to me.

So I don't think I am in a position to debate 'faith'. It might help if I was a lapsed theist or culturally Christian (whatever that means) but I am neither.

bsy

I hope it isn't ages before I can see it this time.
Congratulations on the new boxer by the way.

I said:
'You claim to cut theists more slack than atheists because atheists ought to know better'

You replied:

"Not precisely."

In #716 in the delusion thread you say:

"Indeed. But again we may differ I cut them some slack because they can't help it but refuse to cut atheists the same slack because they can and should."

So I can see a difference there but not one that alters my case. I agree with you that if a theist declares that faith is an indispensable foundation of their belief system, then demanding reason and evidence for that part is not productive. I also agree that some atheists stray outside the remit of reason and evidence and also sometimes use fallacious or unevidenced arguments whilst in both cases presenting them as rational cases.

But in that case I wouldn't cut the atheist any slack either. The argument between us probably isn't to do with what constitutes an incoherent or hypocritical case on either side in the abstract. My argument is that a priori, you have presented no case as to why either side should get more slack over all. You have given a specific example of a type of bad atheist argument. But for every one of those I can give a theist example. Indeed you mentioned the classic theist-uses-reason-and-evidence-inconsistently example.

You say:

"My position with regard to naturalists is that if they claim to operate using evidence and reason then I cut them less slack if they use rhetorical tricks, sophistry, logical fallacies or their own version of 'juju' science rather than reason and evidence to argue their position.

I also cut them less slack if they fail to apply rational analysis to their own belief systems with the same rigour that they deploy it against supernatural belief systems."

But this is mirrored by the theist tendency to use bad analogy, use reason when it suits them but play the 'mystery' or 'faith' cards only when their own poor arguments get into difficulty. There is no excuse whatever that I can see for why theists should get an easier ride on that one. A bad argument is just that-from either side.

This is a crucial point, you said:

"The only problem here is that I don't think I have suggested that the non-rational a belief in 'gods or other objects of faith' is a 'necessary deficit'. "

But unless you do want to imply this then either one of two conclusions seems to follow. Either theists, suffering no deficit in their capacity for rational thought deserve no more slack than the atheists in terms of their inconsistent or poor use of reason, or the kind of slack you afford to theists is of a specific kind that is not available to atheists. Well, if theists say they believe X as a matter of faith and don't themselves try to justify it by other means, then what slack is there to give? Surely, not demanding reason and evidence for X is not so much cutting slack as following basic common sense and the meaning of words? So I can't think of theist-specific slack at all I'm afraid.

So we are left with:

"I have specific issues when someone who claims to be a rationalist appears to need such a mythology."

But all I can detect is a certain irony that a supposed rationalist doesn't realise that their belief system cannot be rationally justified without circularity. That's fair, but theists have their foibles too so I just don't see the justification for differential slack there.

Perhaps we ought to leave the role of faith to one side.

hi psi
busy at moment. I'll catch up later

bsy

I look forward to it.

'I look forward to it.'

It may be delayed as I am somewhat busy over the next few days as I leave for Edinburgh on Saturday. I look forward to visiting the Old College where I met the SO.

http://websiterepository.ed.ac.uk/explore/places/buildings/oldcollege.html

though it is no longer a 'college' in the Oxbridge sense but more a policy and administrative centre.

I haven't been there for a good few years so I will be largely *anonymous*. Sic transit...Ah well.....

However, I have an old mate who now works in Academic Affairs, Planning and Secretariat (APPS) and there is a very fine Indian restaurant nearby that I used to frequent so I expect a long and pleasant lunch

However I will try and *complete* the post but I can't really *drop* other things

bsy

psi

CDs: Are these of his latest incarnation or from the one featured on John Peel (though possibly before his tenure as timpanist)

I got a bit misled over his very first incarnation because of Andrew Hill and a misleading reference (not his) to a Irish folk (sic) band
bsy

Understood. Although I would have thought it would be the AAPS.
Is that a department in the college?

These were DIIC cd's from jank. One had 4 tracks, the other 5.

Hi psi

Understood: Good though I still owe you a on liner and it is an actuality

AAPS : Typo.

Department: Strangely it doesn't label itself as such. Just AAPS. May be something to do with not producing a confusion with academic departments.

Hi psi.

Thanks. I listened to them on the website when Jank first mentioned DIIC. Excellent. I haven't figured out to how to download them.

I guess J has pointed you to the Youtube page with the other unpressed tracks.

I picked up Diskin on Amazon (where the first incarnation can also be found). Different from DIIC but also excellent.

I have fitted the boxer with the optional cd player and speakers and will play it as I transit North Holland.

Btw, The Fringe. Any one you know of who will there who is worth catching?
bsy

bsy

Anonymous though you are, you may find there is something there for you. I suppose not many would know you as Bx4 though.

As for the fringe, I'm afraid my attention is not on it so I can't give you any tips.

hi psi

anonymous: Transiting North Holland? I could get a teeshirt printed. 'I am Bx4'. Not sure that any one would know what 'four' was though or the national and regional antecedents of the 'Diskin' timpanist.

I intend to visit Grrrrrroningen where I might actually get to try out my poorly remembered Dutch with burr.

btw have you heard the famous mobile phone 'Dutch' voiceover?

I have just add JJ Cale's Travelin' Light to my themed selection for the Pirsig run.

Fringe. Ah well. Random selection and pot luck again. So it goes. Thanks anyway.

bsy

"anonymous: Transiting North Holland?"

I was thinking more of your visit to an old haunt tomorrow. Who knows what might turn up?

I got on a tram in Amsterdam once and this gut started talking to me in Dutch. I just said something like 'Sorry, Ik snaap het neet.'

I haven't heard that voiceover as far as I know. Ears peeled from now on.

Good luck with the Pirsig run.

Hmmm, disturbing image....I didn't mean that a disembodied intestine started talking to me. (Very Naked Lunch), 'gut' = 'guy'.