Everything happens for a reason, and that reason is usually physics

F.B. friend S.B. posted this: 

Me: In other words, no reason at all...

S.B.: precisely.

Me: We are random assemblages of atoms with no purpose, no meaning, and no reason. There is no such thing as virtue, right or wrong, or truth. So the statement is meaningless., as is our lives.

S.B.: not at all - but I see those things as social constructs, and have no problem with that. It's up to me to create my own purpose in life, and to find my own meaning.

to me that doesn't seem to be a problem -- and I certainly have no problems telling right from wrong, nor do I see much evidence to suggest that those who DO feel there's a higher power are especially good at being virtuous.

Me: Your statements are meaningless. Your found purpose is meaningless, because it is also a construct. There is no right and wrong, so there is no way to identify virtue.

I did not claim that believing in a higher power makes one more virtuous. In fact those people are usually the first to admit their inability to be virtuous. But at least they have an objective standard to compare to. Yours is arbitrary.

S.B.: as is yours.

K.R.: Guys---just chill-- We all want our life on this earth to count.

B.D.: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man unless there's an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?

Me: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man if there isn't an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?

Me: Kristi, we are engaging in a polite debate, which Scott and I have done many times before on a variety of subjects. No one is angry here.

S.B.: Rich -- How about a social contract with your fellow human beings, handed down over tens of thousands of years of cultural traditions and reinforced through genetics (portions of our brains appear to be hard-wired to "care" about what others think of our actions -- which may explain why sociopathy is relatively uncommon).

And from a non-believer's point of view, that's really no different than the invisible guy. That's simply another form of social contract, amongst a group of similar believers (because we certainly don't see different religious groups agreeing on the finer points of what laws are God-given) with an enforcement mechanism that carries (for some, at least) more clout than mere ostracism by their peers.

If you've got faith that there is some God to give law to the universe, that's fine -- but don't presume to think that it is the only motivation to be altruistic or to concern yourself with the notions of good/bad, right or wrong.

B.W.: Hmmm. This might be the right time to give Hub's speech about life?

Me: I am presuming nothing, since I have made no defense of my own morality or reason for existence. I have been solely concerned with what, if any reason apart from objective morality, is there to act morally.

Hard wired? That assumes the premise that morality is good, a tautology.

S.B.: No it only presumes that morality confers some sort of competitive advantage in an evolutionary sense. And that's neither tautology nor especially hard to find evidence for.

S.B.: More specifically and precisely - that traits that are often linked to morality, such as empathy (do unto others), altruism (you ARE your brothers keeper), and honesty (don't lie), are traits that have provided us with some tiny advantage - not hard to imagine especially in light of how much of our evolutionary history is set in the context of small, tribal groups where how you treated others often had bearing on how likely you were to share in the group's bounty

Me: Altruism is an advantage? Sacrificing what you have for someone else puts you in a evolutionary disadvantage.

You assume virtue in various things without context or cause.

S.B.: actually, there's a very large literature examining the evolutionary basis for altruism. Again, recall that we have evolved as a social creature, and most of that evolutionary history has taken place in small, tight knit tribal settings -- plenty of time for certain traits that make it easier to survive in a group setting to leave a genetic fingerprint.

Nice review of the literature in this paper: http://ggsc-web02.ist.berkeley.edu/.../Trivers...

as to the nature vs. nurture question, and the degree to which behavioral traits might be in part genetic, I recommend reading Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" -- outstanding discussion of the whole issue.

C.S.: Rich, it is also important to remember that evolutionary advantage is a concepts applies to the group, not JUST individuals. Things like altruism are ultimately good for the survival of the group/tribe/species.

Me: Because evolution is all about what's good for groups.

Me: It's amazing how we are able to imagine purpose, goodness, and utility in a purposeless universe.

S.B.: Evolution often is about group survival Rich - a direct consequence of how it works

As to purpose, that's your words not mine. There is often utility but that hardly need be imagined - it's demonstrated daily.

I'd argue that goodness is defined socially - whether we imagine a higher power as part of that definition is simply detail

Me: You are attempting to describe mechanics. No purpose required.

How is different than why. There is no why, therefore there is no purpose, no reason, no order other than unguided forces. It's nothing but laughable self-delusion to attempt to invent your own purpose in a void.

B.W.: Butting in...

I would tend to agree that a universe that has no transcendental purpose has little (if any) intrinsic value. However, a universe that has transcendental purpose may have great value. Since we can't prove (or disprove) either with physics or philosophy, we are left to choose which paradigm we assume.

In the movie, "Second Hand Lions", the character, Hub, played by Robert Diniro, attempts to tell us which paradigm we should accept, whether it's true or not: http://youtu.be/wJemDZcgIZE

S.B.: Rich, -- what's laughable to you is not to me. And vice versa. The notion that there is some unseen entity guiding all this is irrelevant to me if I can neither prove it nor disprove it -- lacking faith I see no reason to feign it "just in case"

Me: I have made no case or mention of an unseen entity. You case stands or falls on its own.

5 Things Conservatives Lie Shamelessly About - Amanda Marcotte

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------------------------

You can almost bank on the fact that when Leftists complain about something the opposition is doing, they are the ones that are doing it. Lying shamelessly is also a patented technique of the Left, where a point is hammered incessantly until it is accepted as gospel truth. Examples? "Citizens United" opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate campaign contributions. Tax increases reduce the national debt. The rich aren't paying their fair share. Christians are intolerant. The list goes on and on...

So here we have a good little leftist promulgating her own "truth," this time as a fact checker against conservatives. Right off we know she's full of it, because her article is headlined with a picture of Bill O'Reilly. Since O'Reilly is not a conservative, well, this only means that she doesn't exactly inspire our confidence. Read on:
-------------------------------

Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: tell lies so fast your opponents can't keep up.

Mark Twain once famously said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Twain wasn’t praising lies with this comment, of course, but modern-day conservatives seem to think he was dishing out advice instead of damning the practice of dishonesty. Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: One lie is easy for your opponents to debunk. Tell one lie after another, however, and your opponent’s debunkings will never catch up. By the time the liberal opposition has debunked one lie, there’s a dozen more to take its place. (As we have noted, Leftists have already got quite a bit of difficulty with the truth. The fact they have difficulty "debunking" conservative "lies" should not surprise us since the truth so often eludes the Left.)

Science educator Eugenie Scott deemed the technique the “Gish Gallop,” named for a notoriously sleazy creationist named Duane Gish. The Urban Dictionary defines the Gish Gallop as a technique that “involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it.”  (Again, Leftists are particularly adept at this technique.) 

Often users of the Gish Gallop know their arguments are nonsense or made in bad faith, but don’t particularly care because they are so dead set on advancing their agenda. Unfortunately, the strategy is so effective that it’s been expanding rapidly in right-wing circles. Here are just a few of the most disturbing examples of the Gish Gallop in action.

1. Creationism. It’s no surprise creationists inspired the coining of the term Gish Gallop, as they have perfected the art of making up nonsense faster than scientists can refute it. The list of false or irrelevant claims made by creationists, as chronicled by Talk Origins, numbers in the dozens, perhaps even hundreds, and more are always being spun out. Trying to argue with a creationist, therefore, turns into a hellish game of Whack-A-Mole. Debunk the lie that the speed of light is not constant, and you’ll find he’s already arguing that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Argue that it’s unconstitutional to put the story of Adam and Eve in the science classroom, and find he’s pretending he was never asking for that and instead wants to “teach the controversy.” (Whew. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between the issue of creationism, and what might or might not be constitutional. One is a scientific/philosophical question, the other is a legal question. 

Offering opinions, drawing conclusions, or exercising faith are matters apart from lying. We also need to note here that neither link supplied provides evidence for the author's claims. Remember, the claim is that creationists lie and change the subject to other lies when confronted. Documentation, please?)

Letter to the editor: NDO is in keeping with MLK's spirit of just laws - Steve Kirchhoff

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------
MLK is a useful and frequently invoked symbol for the Left, but only by misrepresenting him with out-of-context snippets can they get him to conform to their dysfunctional world view. Here is another such attempt:
----------------------------

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously wrote that laws which uplift the human personality are good laws, while laws which degrade human personality are unjust. (It only takes one sentence for Mr. Kirchhoff to wander into fantasyland. Here is MLK's full quote: "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." So the appropriation of this quote from its context turns MLK's beliefs 180 degrees. MLK believed that laws must conform to morality, that is, God's law. Mr. Kirchoff completely reverses this.)

Divorce, remarriage, and sin - a conversation

A conversation with my friend David:

David: Matthew 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

Well it is pretty clear here in Matthew that people like this are committing adultery. 

Me: So, where does repentance fit in? 

David: These are tough questions, I don't have an answer for you, it is clear to me that Jesus calls them adulterers, and Paul says they won't inherit the kingdom of God (see scripture below). I personally want to avoid this situation, keep the wife I have and therefore not have to reconcile wither or not I need to repent. It is easier to avoid the sin than to have to repent.

To repent is to change course or to stop doing what you have been doing. For these men to change course, seems a bit excessive. The only example I can think of is in Ezra 10 where they sent the women and children away. I sure am not suggesting that they do that.

Also what do you do with 1 Cor 6: 9: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men."

Surely you have an answer to this dilemma, right?

Me: Quite right, as usual.

It depends on if a person believes "once an adulterer, always an adulterer." For this we would need to assume that continuing to be married to a divorced woman is a continuing sin.

Why do we never say, "once an idolater, always an idolater?" Or continuing on in vs. 10, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers as well? In all these other cases, a person can simply cease to engage in those sins, while being married to a divorced woman is a continuing status.

But this doesn't work for me, because divorcing a woman, even a divorced woman, is a sin. If remaining married is also a sin, then there's no way to avoid sin. So this can't be true.

The next verse provides the remedy, which I think must apply to all the sins mentioned, including divorce: 1Co. 6:11 "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."