All or Nothing
Topic: Lectures On Doubt

One of the tactics of believers is to invoke, typically unwittingly, the problem of induction in the favor of their favorite deity. The problem of induction, to those skeptics out there new to the game, is the problem of making general inferences from finite samples.  It doesn't follow that if one only observes white ducks throughout their life, then there exist only white ducks. As opposed to deductive reasoning which provides certainty.¹ If a black duck is discovered, it follows deductively and immediately that the statement "All ducks are white" is false.  In a previous Skeptic's Boot Camp I gave the example of Newtonian physics. It didn't matter how many observations seemed to prove it, the problem of induction held that it could not be considered ultimately true.  There has never been a satisfactory solution to the problem of induction. 

Many times, when a believer is getting his time piece polished by an atheist, the believer will reach down and revealing all he has left demand, "But how can we know anything at all? Look how often science is wrong!"  At that instant, the atheist can raise his hands in the air victorious. Although, further instruction should be provided for the sake of hoping to improve the world just a little bit.  The obvious route to go from here is to point out that if this reasoning bolsters God, it also bolsters every heinous crime imaginable. The believer should be requested not to object if a pedophile justifies his actions on the same grounds.

Sometimes I'm surprised that even some of the more articulate religious thinkers take this line of argument.  Mormon Egyptologist John Gee has made the point that since Egyptology is controversial, then the Book of Abraham just might be vindicated one day.² Of course, it would be interesting if he'd give any other theory in his field of equal controversy more than five minutes of thoughtful consideration.

Today, James Faulconer, a Mormon BYU philosopher who I respect quite a bit to be honest, made this point on a blog:³

"If a person insists on a certain, rationalist and Enlightenment understanding of intelligibility and reasonableness, then the gospel doesn’t make sense. No religion can be reduced to a rational system with neither remainder nor absence and without contradiction. But, as Godel proved, neither can arithmetic, so that inability on the part of religion isn’t much of a strike against it."

I was pretty surprised by that statement.  It's probably the most verbally sophisticated articulation of this fallacious reasoning I've ever seen. While not invoking induction here, but rather a very obscure subject in logic, the result is the same.  While this isn't a strike against religion, it's also not a strike against Time Cubeism, flat earthism, masochism, or any other insane or destructive belief. I'd bet everything I own that no Enlightenment thinker would have ever expected Mormonism or any other religion to be demonstrated formally complete before it could be considered "reasonable."

If absolute metaphysical certitude isn't achievable, then who dares to criticize any religion as irrational?

1. The problem of induction lurks behind deduction too when considered epistemically.
2. References to Kuhn in Abracadabra, Isaac, and Jacob
3. Times and Seasons
 

Postmodernism
Topic: Postmodernism
Five Quick and Dirty points about Postmodernism

1) Postmodernism isn't naive relativism. Funny enough, this is a typical characterization by both detractors and unimaginative defenders. Postmodernism often champions pluralism, but not necessarily so. Pluralism may or may not fall prey to relativism.  

2) Postmodernism doesn't assert that the "real world," tables, chairs, bullets, and clouds are social constructs. While the idea of a social construction of the world is important, postmodernists are trying to answer different questions than you likely are. It's all too easy to read a postmodernist as answering your questions rather than their questions. I think the Sokal Hoax is telling. I highly doubt any postmodernists have held a view similar to Sokal's thesis that new perspectives in math will one day actually defy gravity.  Postmodernists aren't trying to understanding the physical world as physicists are. The results of postmodernism don't typically have much of a commentary on physical reality.

3) Postmodernism isn't existentialism.  Existentialism rebels against the Cartesian "knowing subject" while substituting other modes of existence for the individual such as "authenticity." But postmodernism leaves the individual far less empowered. Rather than the individual being the lens into the world with its choices and will, postmodernism takes a primary interest in reigning power structures such as language, culture, media, and politics from which the subject is constructed. 

4) Postmodernism isn't just a bunch of gibberish. Granted, pomo's might take obscurity to a whole new level, but have those who so quickly accuse it ever tried to read Kant, Hegel, Carnap or William of Ockham without a commentary? Philosophy is often just, dense.  But more importantly, the western study of philosophy is widely acknowledged to have split a couple hundred years or so ago into America and England's Analytic tradition and the Continental tradition taken up by the rest of Europe from which postmodernism springs.  Since we haven't been studying the stuff here in America postmodernists are commenting on, why should we expect to pick up Simulacra and Simulations and read it like Moby Dick?  After a very basic introduction to Marxism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, and semiology, virtually any postmodernist text will become at least twice as clear.  But make a note, having studied Marx as part of an economics class at the local university doesn't count. You have to understand Marx and Freud on their terms.

5) Postmodernism isn't just any single position or critique. As analytic philosophers disagree all the time, so do postmodernists.  Accusations of "Postmodernism" and "Positivism" alike are generally made with a naivety shared by certain youth in other countries who have asked me while I'm abroad, since I'm American, if I personally know Michael Jordan.

Internet Mormons Will Believe Anything
Topic: I'm Sorry I believe

When I was a Mormon, I believed what the prophets taught. "The wisdom of men is foolishness." Science could come up with whatever "theories" it wanted. But I believed the word of God through his servants, "Whether it is by my own voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same." I didn't doubt, like Thomas S. Monson taught, I lived by my faith. If God said there was an ark, there was an ark. If he said there was a global flood, there was a global flood. If he said he created Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, then that's what he did and evolution could take a hike. If God said the 10 tribes were lost, in one body, and would bring their scriptures to exchange with the other tribes, then that's what he meant. If that means the only place for them to live is under the arctic ice or in the interior of the earth, than that's where they live. Let science figure out where they went wrong after the earth has been burned and the scientists are begging for mercy at the judgment bar of God, Jesus, and Joseph Smith. If I was going to believe 'science' and 'reason' every time there was a conflict with my faith, what's the point of being a believer? Why not just be agnostic and believe things as 'science' figures them out?

It's after all, not out of any virtue that one in this situation remains true to baptism by immersion or belief in the temple. Since those things are completely outside the realm of investigation by reason, they are under no direct threat. It's no challenge to believe them, if that's how you'd been brought up to believe. It doesn't take FAITH to believe Jesus died for your sins if the idea has been hammered into your head from the time you were two years old. If somehow, the atonement was in any way refutable by reason or evidence, and if there were as much evidence brought to bear against it as that against a global flood, would you still believe it? It's easy to say "yes" when such a situation is hypothetical only and under no threat of materializing. But my belief, is that for a very large portion of Internet Mormons, all beliefs are negotiable. The ones claimed otherwise, have nothing to do with -- in my opinion -- being "central" to Mormonism or their faith, but rather, being completely outside the realm of reason to investigate.

explanation
just a note if anyone i've given the address is reading this. I originally wasn't intending on making it "public" for a while, as it would seem boring or irrelevant for a few weeks. I have some stuff i've wanted to put online for a while but didn't think it justified a website and i like the blog format because it encourages brevity. unlike some of my friends, i still need training wheels on that one. anyway, once i get through most of that stuff, the topics will seem more normal.

Gödel
Topic: Godel

Most of us have heard about Gödel via Douglass Hofstadter, someone who has been utterly mystified by Hofstadter, or someone who has been inspired by Hofstadter to invent their own Gödel mystery cult.  Being susceptible to mysticism myself I knew I'd need to be strong when I set out to get to the bottom of Gödel a few years back.  It really is a temptation to extrapolate too far. I mean, take possibly the most important result in logic - ever - and combine it with the one subject the general public would have an interest in where Gödel's theorem might have an application, the mind - which just in fact might conceal the greatest mystery ever - and how could the average person not be seduced? Hell, how could the average person not want to be seduced? While I've personally only scratched the surface of mathematical logic, I think I learned enough in my little excursion to benefit others who have become interested in Gödel through popular literature understand his theorem and how to skeptically consider the applications.  I think the best way to present Gödel given the walls I ran into is, after the remainder of this brief introduction, forgo all the context and just spell it out in grossly oversimplified terms. Then I'll add some context, along with considerations to the philosophy of mind.  I'll have some final notes that step through his actual proof and translate the main ideas.

To over-oversimplify, Gödel will show that from no formal system, or rather, list of assumptions and rules for making deductions from those assumptions, can we produce all true statements of the formal system.  In other words, Gödel will discover a statement that is true within a formal system, but this statement can't be derived from the formal system.  Why that's important to math and logic I'll save for later. But a brief note on the importance of the result to the philosophy of mind, since that's what's the interesting part for most people.  It would seem the only analog we have for describing how the brain works, or how the mind works, is a machine. And probably a fast one, like a computer.  But a machine is just the physical embodiment of rules.  So if Kurt Gödel's brain is a machine, then how could he have ever come up with his "Gödel sentence?"

God is Morality is God is Morality
Topic: All Is Permitted

I've found discussions of morality to be in fact the most frustrating of any conversations one can have with a believer.  You'd think after all those years of going to church and reading the scriptures, they could enlighten us poor, lost wretches with some solid insight on at least the one thing that God supposedly can do better than anything else: tell us about right and wrong.  For the record, I don't think all theists hold entirely absurd views on morality. But I do think it's uncommon to run across a believer who has put any effort at all into understanding the meaning and consistency of their moral positions.  And that not only reflects poorly on themselves, but the institutions educating them. I don't think solving the problems within ethics is trivially easy for the atheist at all and I can't say that I have any final answers. What I do think is easy, is responding to most Christians. A couple of these deal with meaning and purpose since those things often get tied up in moral conversations.

Confusing incentives with imperatives

Believer:  Without God, you can do anything you want!

Atheist:  But can't we do anything we want though, with God?

Believer:  Yes but, the wrongdoers without God will ultimately go unpunished.

Atheist:  So if they don't get caught, that makes it ok?

Circular

Believer: If there is no God, who is going to give us rules to live by?

Atheist: I, Gadianton will give you rules to live by.

Believer: But you're not God!

Atheist: True, but God isn't Gadianton.

Incentive cuts both ways

Believer:  Without God, there is no eternal incentive, people will not as readily feed the poor and help the needy.

Atheist:  Without God, there is no eternal incentive.  Without a harem of horny virgins awaiting, young males will not as readily crash planes into buildings.

Criteria confused

Believer:  Historically, the good done in the name of God outweighs the bad!

Atheist: Great! When did you become a utilitarian?

All or nothing

Believer: If I can't live forever with God, what's the point of living at all?

Atheist: If I can't make a million dollars a week, what's the point in having a job?

Objective meaning is absurd

Believer: My life has meaning because God put me here for a purpose. 

Atheist:  Do the lives of pigs have meaning because farmers raise them for beacon?

or

Atheist:  Do the damned find meaning because God predestined them to hell?

or

Atheist: Does your life have more meaning when your parents tell you what you have to do?

Ignorance

Believer: God can look beyond the limits of man's reason and tell us what we should do.

Atheist: Case in point: The Lafferty brothers.

Believer: No! What they did is sick and makes absolutely no sense!

Atheist: God works in mysterious ways, I didn't expect you to understand.

Catch-Phrase Philosophy
Topic: Lectures On Doubt

Skeptics Boot Camp (II)

Nothing reveals ignorance more readily to the informed than the use of popular slogans which are believed to bear great philosophical significance but in reality, are either quite meaningless, ambiguous, or just don't hold the gravity those to whom the slogan is popular among assume.  In this installment we'll go over a few loosely related catch phrases.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid these may have been popularized by atheists and skeptics. Though their use is growing uncritically amongst amateur apologists and if I had to keep a tally, probably have been used more often by believers than critics on the message boards I post at. The danger in these is that they are often used in the form: (catch phrase), therefore, whatever I've argued is true.

"You can't prove a negative!" or
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

These are not concepts you will ever read about in philosophy of science discussions.  They are vague, loose formulations of the problem of induction (probably) and really, they are just false.  Is the statement, "There are no living Tyrannosaurus" any less of a fact than, "There are living lions and tigers?"  If you'd been arrested and tried in a court of law for murder, and not a shred of evidence whatsoever could be linked to you, should that not count as "evidence" in your favor? 

The problem of induction holds that just because the sun rises today, it doesn't logically follow that it will rise tomorrow.  If one were to come up empty handed after searching two thousand years for a Dodo bird, that wouldn't guarantee no Dodo birds exist.  All the experiments in the world seemed to confirm Newtonian mechanics, nevertheless along came Relativity.  Same problem.  So here we have three examples, the first is a "positive" that can't escape induction, the second a "negative" and the final, sort of an inversion where "proving a negative" comes with more certainty than proving a positive.

"...burden of proof.."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"Burden of Proof" may have a place in the rules of a formal debate or in academic convention, but is there really a universal standard for assigning "burden of proof" in any given real-world argument?  What criteria is there for determining the most "extraordinary claim?" The problem is, those who assign the burden seem to believe the force of the assignment comes by way of security of their own position.  But it's quite obvious that, historically, the burden of proof doesn't necessarily lie with the most "extraordinary" claim with respect to some universal rules of evidence because the "ordinary claim" is often just the popular claim.  From what we know today about astronomy, Galileo should have been able to scoff at his peers and demand them to bring the evidence on for the geocentric model, sit back, and wait.  Obviously, independent of how wrong the geocentric model was, Galileo clearly had the "burden of proof," and his claim was in fact, the "extraordinary" one.

Skeptics shouldn't merely dismiss the ideas of believers and pretend to wait patiently for the evidence they know will never come.  They should be anxiously engaged in demonstrating how wrong the beliefs are.

"Ockham's Razor tells us..."

Ockham was a key figure in philosophy and it's true that simplicity should be a goal of any theory.  I'm not knocking Ockham here at all, but rather slogans that substitute appeal to Ockham for argument.  It's very difficult to conjure up real-world situations where the deciding factor is Ockham's razor.  Assumptions that we make can be big factors in what constitutes "simplicity" in the first place and it's those assumptions which seem to me, tip the balance in the mind of those appealing to Ockham, and not parsimony per se.

To sum up, any of these catch-phrases could be merely thrown out for rhetorical flair in context of a very cogent argument. We all use catch phrases out of habit at some time or another.  But more often than not, the slogans above will serve as a warning flag for a problematic argument ahead.

Abusing Logical Fallacies
Topic: Lectures On Doubt

Skeptic's Boot Camp

The reasoning of skeptics, on average, should be a cut above that of religious believers. To this end, I've decided to post a few installments discussing some basic problems I've noticed in the day-to-day argumentation I follow online. I hope these suggestions will be helpful to especially, new skeptics, not just as a lesson in what to avoid themselves, but as immediate clues to identify an opponent who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Abusing Logical Fallacies

To my satisfaction, I've noticed skeptics, even new skeptics are far less likely to abuse a logical fallacy than an apologist. It seems to me that it has become part of the apologist culture to view themselves as master logicians and not hesitate to point out the supposed fallacies of their skeptical opponents. It's my belief, that skeptics should restrain themselves from identifying by name the fallacies of believers and just point out plainly what is wrong with the argument. Spending too much time pointing out logical fallacies looks petty and like you're trying to hard to impress everyone. It's not unlike fanatically pointing out spelling and grammar errors. Pointing out logical fallacies by name, should be reserved for those believers most worthy of scorn, or to teach a lesson to those believers who erroneously point out fallacies in others.

Straw Man: Look for this accusation being used broadly to cover virtually anything the believer doesn't like about an opponents argument. Note that the "absurd" portion of a correctly formulated reductio ad absurdum argument is often misidentified as a "straw man." This seems to be a reocurring error in FAIR moderating calls. Saying, "If a Mormon believes X, then he must be a Q" is different from saying, "If a Mormon believes X for reasons Y, then how do you deny a Q from believing Z for reasons Y?"

Begging The Question: This refers to circular reasoning, not "raising a question." Even if brute ignorance secures this phrase acceptence in casual vernacular, it should be avoided. The biggest problem I see is that those who typically use this terminology seem to think that they are pointing out a fallacy. They've heard the term in conjuction with fallacies from somewhere and reason that it means if what the opponent is saying is true, it raises very hard questions that the opponent probably can't answer. Also, unless you've already established a respected persona, it will take you down a notch in the eyes of the lurkers who think you don't know what it means.

Ad Hominem: A personal insult doesn't constitute a fallacy. It has to be suggested that from the insult, it follows that the insultee's argument doesn't work.

Appeal To Authority: It's ok to cite an authority to back a claim. And there is a lot of gray area here, but the problem is when the stature of the authority overshadows the actual content of the claim. Also, be aware of the appeal to (false) authority. This happens frequently with apologetics groups. Where experts in one area, wanting to help with the cause of faith, apply their skills to areas where that expertise counts far less, or not at all.

False Dichotomy: Many have been wrongly charged with a false dichotomy because the accuser doesn't understand that the word "or" has both an exclusive and non-exclusive sense. Make sure what's presented really is, first, a dichotomy before inspecting it for a fallacy. Often times, it's just natural to give two or three options of what's in mind as examples, not meaning to be exclusive.

"You can eat oranges or bananas to get your vitamins."

"What, you're saying I can't get vitamins from apples?!!"

Also keep in mind, that sometimes a fallacy like this will be knowingly committed by the author for rhetorical effect or humor. Pointing it out triumphantly might make it look like you didn't quite "get it."

Dembski Dismissed
Topic: Nothing Bears Witness

Irreducible complexity

At the beginning of a paper where Dembski introduces some of his basic ideas, he gives the following illustration of "specified complexity, "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."¹ (emphasis added) At the end of the same article, he asks if nature exhibits actual specified complexity. He looks to Michael Behe and proposes, "If such systems are, as Behe claims, highly improbable and thus genuinely complex with respect to the Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection and if they are specified in virtue of their highly specific function (Behe looks to such systems as the bacterial flagellum), then a door is reopened for design in science that has been closed for well over a century." (emphasis added) Of course, according to Dembski himself in the first quote, in order to claim nature is "specified," he has to provide us with "an independently given pattern" first before we start talking about the probabilities of conformance to this pattern. What is the independently given pattern Dembski and his God-fearing friends have discovered as a standard to compare nature to?

Semiotics and Incommensurability

Dembski and disciples point to SETI as a scientifically accepted search for specified complexity. So how does SETI do it? It's been suggested that with the discovery of a narrow-band "Contact" style transmission, we could infer design as such a naturally occurring signal is hitherto unknown. Of course, at this juncture, we've effectively moved the goal posts. Remember there are two parts to specified complexity, gleaning from the above:

1) Highly improbable with respect to known natural mechanisms
2) Specified (conforming to an independently given pattern)

This criteria conforms merely to 1). Which is why it would be ideal for SETI. They don't need to compare it to something they don't have knowledge of, the aliens' minds and intentions. SETI, unlike ID high on DI, understands the problems associated with 2). Douglas Vakoch of SETI argues, "In the absence of knowledge of physical and cultural clues, communication between two species can be almost impossible."² And in the closing paragraph of this paper, Vakoch concludes, "As much as we try to present the phenomena in themselves, it is difficult to bracket - or even identify - the presuppositions that we make when identifying the phenomena we assume to be of universal significance." The parallel to ID is clear. Without a simple de facto standard (like knowing the conventionally defined symbols which signify a win on a slot machine or knowledge of spelling english words) we must extrapolate universal principles of signification from our own experience. And that should be highly problematic. Yet for IDers, it's a walk in the park. If a flagella works like a rotor, then it really must be a rotor. It's almost like, if scientists were to discover a gigantic "H" on Mars, it really must be the letter "H." Perhaps the Martians were in the middle of scribbling out the word "Help" in a desperate plea just before their demise?

1. Explaining Intelligent Design, William Dembski, 1999.
2. The View from a Distant Star: Challenges of Interstellar Message-Making, Douglas A. Vakoch, 1999.

Shall We Sin?
Topic: The Miracle Of Sin
Shall we sin? Absolutely!

One of the things I've noticed with some of my fellow apostates is they resist enjoying the many pleasures the world has to offer. Contrary to what many TBMs think, apostates often times have difficulty embracing a worldly life. Part of that resistance I think, is a belief that they need to be able to say, "I lived the gospel for 25 years, I went on a mission, I never did anything wrong, I paid a full tithing. When I left the church it wasn't because I wanted to sin or because I was bitter, but because I had studied the issues and made an informed decision."

There are a couple of problems with this reasoning. First of all, it's a Mormon belief that the presence of sin accounts for all apostacy. Those who have rejected the many absurd claims of the church don't need to apply this standard to themselves. Sins, emotions, personal choices, and lifestyle are always a part of apostacy. Just not for the reasons church members think they are. It doesn't matter if it's Mormonism, Scientology or the Navy, someone who breaks community protocols and alienate themselves from the group, even in subtle ways, is always in a position where they can more objectively evaluate the institutions they belong to. This is not inherently good or bad. Suffice it to say, there is no inherent shame in "sin" being a part of the exit story.

So yes, it's ok to sin! No Mormon is ever going to believe you didn't! The key to remember is that just because other factors besides reason contribute to apostacy, that doesn't mean the apostacy isn't justified on the very logical grounds given. In fact, as I have argued, it often takes some real life turmoil in order to get our brains to question deeply held assumptions about the world.