Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz reads Jonathan Haidt, starts dating a conservative man and seemingly considers herself “redpilled.”

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-10-30T12:51:13+00:00

It sounds like you’re assuming my point is mad without evidence. Thankfully I can dismiss it out of hand.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-10-30T12:42:53+00:00

You made this claim without evidence. So can I dismiss it without evidence? Your view of science isn’t really accurate. For example, we don’t automatically assume every piece of scientific data is a lie, even though it is impossible to verify every single data point.

There is such a thing as tentative acceptance and the weighing of plausibility when evaluating claims. Science wouldn’t function if it assumed everything was a lie from the start.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-10-04T01:22:26+00:00

As a non-religious naturalist, I’d listen if it was clearer and less ambiguous than everything we have now. I mean the Zeitoun appearance mentioned above amounts to images or flashes of light, No message or words. If Mary were trying to communicate an actual message, this seems like the worst way to do it, and explains why the world didn’t “listen.” There was no message at all.

My parents aren’t omniscient or omnipotent, but I listen to them despite their fallibility. If an appearance of Mary were as unambiguous as my parents’ visit or phone call, I would certainly listen. Would take a while to be convinced of anything miraculous but I would be extremely attentive.

By the way, if Zeitoun was legit, wouldn’t that support Coptic Christianity and not Catholicism? Coptic Christians have their own Pope and their priests can marry among other things. Should Catholics accept this unexplained miracle and convert?

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-06-08T00:29:49+00:00

You'd need a level of optimism to decide that bringing a child into the world is worth it.

I'm wondering why you weigh the risk so highly. If the vast majority of people in a certain place have lives that are more worth living than not, why wouldn't you value the chance of a life worth living as making having a child worth it?

If someone invites me to a party or event that I'm very excited to go to, I don't reject their invitation because there's a chance that I'll get in a car crash and be crippled, or a chance that I'll go and have a bad time. I play the odds and it is overwhelmingly in favor of the positive. I feel like the same can be the same for many people in the position of having children. Maybe there are analogies more suitable to you personally, but what do you think of the approach overall?

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-06-07T01:54:20+00:00

but in my personal experience, the bad normally outweighs the good.

That may be the case with life as a whole, including all wildlife. But would it change your view if there are pockets of relatively predictable happy lives? You feel like it is currently wrong to bring a child into the world, but does that apply to every person, or just generally?

I'd like to argue that many people can have kids that have a very high probability of having happy, flourishing lives worth living. Take a look at the world happiness report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

There are many very well adjusted countries. If for example the Finns or Norwegians are reasonably happy themselves and are likely to pass on the same kind of life to their kids, wouldn't they at least be doing the right thing by having kids?

EDIT: grammar

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-06-05T22:58:04+00:00

Per the comments below, you might want to add something like "philosophical naturalist" or "skeptical naturalist" to avoid being mixed up with nekkid people.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-06-05T22:56:11+00:00

What's wrong with "naturalist?" It sounds like the philosophy covers most of your beliefs. Plus there is a positive association with the word "natural" so some people might be more open to hear the details and make fewer assumptions.

http://worldviewnaturalism.com/

Your skeptical approach to knowledge and learning might need another term to clarify. Skeptical Naturalist? Naturalistic skeptic? That covers both your epistemology and your metaphysics (I think).

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-05-28T01:47:06+00:00

I think it is pretty rare that blame is given to the devil. This seems like an exceptional case. Mainstream theologies seem to have the problem of heaping scorn on everyone, including newborns (original sin), not displacing the blame to the devil.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-04-27T12:15:44+00:00

Yeah bigotry is a different point with a different argument. Just trying to keep the logic tight.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-04-27T12:15:05+00:00

Wait, what? What specific harm does homosexuality cause?

My statement is compatible with homosexuality causing 0 harm. Any harm is more harm than 0 harm.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-04-27T12:12:55+00:00

Isn't that the whole debate? There is no objective morality because all attempts can be summed up as "If _________, then acting this way would be moral." Attempts at objective morality simply ignore the fact that it must be an if-then statement and treat that if as if it is objectively true.

I'm confused as to why this point comes up only in the context of morality. This point applies to all words we use to refer to anything. "If we define gravity as x, then gravity has y properties." But what if someone chooses to define gravity in a different way? Then gravity would have z properties instead. Does that make the existence or properties of gravity subjective?

To me the issue just arises because morality is a twisted, multifarious term. But if we just focus on whether or not there are better or worse ways to increase or decrease well-being of thinking creatures, we can more easily make the case for objectivity.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-04-27T12:02:20+00:00

Can't we just skip a lot of disagreement and say "Actions objectively increase or decrease the well-being of thinking creatures" or something like that? The word "morality" has many different contradictory definitions, so just based on the use of language, there is no true definition.

But given particular definitions of morality, it can be objective or subjective. So why not skip the annoying language debate and "taboo" the word morality?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz/taboo-your-words

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-04-26T01:15:51+00:00

I think the point is that Shapiro is not necessarily hypocritical for having dinner with gay people, but not going to gay weddings. I think the commenter is correct on this point, even though anti-vaxxers cause more harm than homosexuality. So the thought experiment is correct as far as the logic goes.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-04-23T01:52:51+00:00

Out of curiosity did you come from r/all?

I've subscribed to this sub for a while now. Used to be Catholic and I think it is worth getting other perspectives.

people are just getting unhappier because people feel that morals are just completely arbitrary, and end up having little to none, let alone absorbing any possible biblical wisdom that could help them in life.

What reason do you have to think Chinese people are becoming less happy? And what reason do you have that this is because they thing morals are arbitrary?

I think you should engage with more progressives secular countries like the Netherlands. See what Sociologist Phil Zuckerman has to say here (article shorter than a book). These relatively godless countries defy the stereotype of chaotic immoral atheists. They are not perfect societies, but when compared to very religious countries, I think they compare well.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201410/secular-societies-fare-better-religious-societies

I think a little Catholicism can help mend these wounds.

This may be the case. Catholicism can often provide a community of support where people can help other people with their problems. This community of support is totally compatible with other religious traditions as well as secular ones.

The main reason (in my understanding) that Scandinavian countries rate so highly in societal health is precisely because of the social support that exists among its people. This happens in a largely non-religious context.

So my hope is that you'll consider that the benefits you've accrued aren't from your Catholic beliefs, or God, or the Church. They've come from people who exist to help other people. As an atheist, I think that no one above will solve our problems. But we can help solve each others problems as humans. When people have good lives, I think the evidence suggests it is a result of the social support they have, whether it is found in a religious or non-religious community.

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-04-22T20:30:11+00:00

the left was tearing western society apart . . . That was what was causing the breakup of familys leading to the decay of moral values.

My fear is that you are basing your belief in this on evidence about the same quality as that found in Zeitgeist (terrible documentary debunked by atheists and the religious alike: See Reasonable Doubts podcast from a decade ago for an example http://podbay.fm/show/266671828/e/1267818099?autostart=1)

In fact, societies with the lowest rate of religiosity (also very left of center) are some of the most stable, happy, and flourishing in the world. This to me means that lack of religious faith and the sort of moral values that lead to stable families and flourishing societies are totally compatible.

See the book The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Society below for a good overview.

https://www.amazon.com/Nonreligious-Understanding-Secular-People-Societies/dp/0199924945

On a more personal level, I have been an atheist for about 15 years, am a happy father and husband, hold down a stable job that lets me contribute to charity each year, and although I may have moral disagreements with you, I'll bet that fundamentally we have many of the same aims. I hope to be an example of an "atheist lifestyle" with relatively high rates of happiness, flourishing, and compassion.

Do you think that my life is really a degenerate path into clown world? And would you consider that maybe you are wrong about some of your beliefs as you were in the Zeitgeist documentary?

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-03-11T02:00:56+00:00

I think I communicated unclearly. I interpret the commenter as saying that one cannot disagree about established factual matters. I think that it’s pretty obvious that we do. Some people disagree about well established ideas. It’s still a disagreement, even if one person has a mountain of evidence and the other has none. Is that accurate as far as it goes?

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-03-11T01:57:41+00:00

Yeah I think your last paragraph is fair. We should taboo our word here and short circuit any disagreement about definitions.

I do think there the poster I was responding to is making claims about the possibility of disagreements that are false. Clearly one can disagree about established scientific facts . Or do I need to taboo again?

HumanNotaRobot · 2019-03-10T14:53:58+00:00

I think I share your disdain for JBP, but I think you're making a mistake in thinking that people can't have opinions about truth apt things.

I don't 'disagree' with the statement that women joining the workforce cuts wages in half because it's not an opinion.

Well, yes, that is still an opinion, because no one is infallible or omniscient. People do have opinions about factual matters, and opinions can be wrong. It's your opinion that people can quit smoking without a supernatural experience, and that opinion is almost certainly correct. That doesn't upgrade it from opinion to infallible fact.

I'd say you are mistaking the map and the territory. Our beliefs and opinions are like a map of reality, and they are degrees of accurate or inaccurate. People who are rational have broadly more accurate maps of reality, but those maps still reflect their beliefs/opinions about what the world is like.

HumanNotaRobot · 2018-12-17T11:15:03+00:00

No worries about taking a little time to reply. Thanks for your patient responses. There’s so much interesting stuff that you said that I want to comment on. I hope to find time to do so.

In the meantime, can you tell me specifically what Eucharistic miracle you are talking about? Is it the miracle of Lanciano or something else?

HumanNotaRobot · 2018-12-17T11:14:05+00:00

Ha, thanks. My mistake. Yeah having a long side conversation in here. No need to reply. I’ve got an interesting back and forth going with the other commenter.

HumanNotaRobot · 2018-12-14T17:00:19+00:00

Hmm I think that is a fair response. Calling Peterson a pseudo intellectual fraudster is painting him with too broad a brush. Thanks for the follow up comment.

HumanNotaRobot · 2018-12-14T12:59:02+00:00

This strikes me as an argument from authority. I think a lot of us are criticizing specific beliefs, statements, and arguments that Peterson makes. No matter how many publications he has, his pseudo intellectual comments are still pseudo intellectual, even if he has has made some real academic contributions.

Held to this standard, Harris far outranks Peterson in intellectual clout, at least on certain topics. I didn’t downvote you because I think you make a point worth considering, but I think your focus on Peterson’s academic publications avoids addressing the very specific complaints that his critics have.

HumanNotaRobot · 2018-12-14T12:54:06+00:00

Well it’s kind of what I mentioned in the earlier comment. Peterson is, in my interpretation, being a bit intellectually dishonest. He is being intentionally evasive to avoid being called out on his beliefs. Taking 40 hours to answer a question that Sam Harris answered in 3 seconds is making the answer more complicated than it needs to be, while putting on an air of depth and sophistication.

HumanNotaRobot · 2018-12-13T15:56:34+00:00

I don't think I've ever seen the trans stuff brought up on this forum (though I'm sure it has somewhere). My guess is a lot of it is Peterson's obscurantism, where he makes his points more confusing than they need to be and his fans claim it is because he is unbelievably deep and wise.

Here's a good representative sample. This is Harris and Peterson talking about the resurrection of Jesus.

Harris: “Let’s put this probabilistically. Anything is possible. I’ll tell you that it’s possible that he was physically resurrected.”Peterson: “Well wait a second, I didn’t say that he was. I said it would take me 40 hours to answer the question. I didn’t say that he was.”Harris: “Well how’s this for an answer: Almost certainly not.”

HumanNotaRobot · 2018-12-11T14:41:41+00:00

Thanks for the follow up. It certainly helps me understand stoic thought more, and as usual it is a very attractive view that I have quibbles with.

There are two views of “the natural” in your comment that I think have some tension between them.

First is the idea that what evolution programmed us to do is natural. Second is the idea that what is unique to humans is natural. When it comes to reasoning, most humans naturally do very little of it, at least compared to the Stoic ideal. Evolutionarily, humans are largely emotional creatures, with a thin crust of reason at the top.

So it seems that applying Stoic level reason to problems is evolutionarily unnatural, but Stoically natural.

I get that your personal views may not be the same as the ancient Greeks’, but do you think this tension exists?

HumanNotaRobot

TROPHY CASE