fuckphilosophy.com

2. Richard Dawkins and a Dearth of Evidence

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins presents the atheist/agnostic/theist conceptual landscape according to individuals’ judgements on the probability that a god exists. Dawkins presents a seven-fold breakdown of these positions, from atheist to theist. At the extremes, individuals claim knowledge, not just a degree of belief. In the middle is the “completely impartial agnostic”. This sounds like a cogent scientific methodology for delineating these muddled concepts, but I will argue that this methodology is ridiculous and almost nonsensical. The primary problem is that any such judgment of probability must be completely baseless. I will begin with the brunt of my argument.

The glaring hole in Dawkins’ conceptual scheme is that he presumes that we can have any reasons on which to base such a judgment of probability. To make a judgment on the probability that a god exists, one must have reasons. So, those who say that there is no god presumably have reasons for making this judgment. Correct? My question is: What are these reasons?¹ There are really only two angles at answering the question: Science and/or philosophy. By this, I mean empirical evidence or formal demonstration (via proof). It isn’t possible to proove (demonstratively) that god doesn’t exist, so that leaves empirical science. Please continue.

Atheists, this is what I take y’all to be saying. Empirical science has eliminated any recourse to “gods” in its explanation of nature. Extremely powerful equations describe the minutest and the most vast and distant events known to man. All of the variables and constants of these equations refer to natural properties/events.² As a result of this, god/gods are entirely removed from our highest-level explanations of nature. The atheist might say: Science leaves absolutely no reason to believe in god/gods.

I don’t disagree with the above. But, the atheist does not just argue that we have no reason to believe in gods – the atheist argues that we have good reason to believe that there are no gods. Here, the atheist commits a basic fallacy in assuming that empirical science constitutes any counterevidence to the existence of god/gods. In the next installment, I will fill in this conclusion and consider the concepts of ‘God’ and ‘god/gods’ and the implications of these distinctions.

1. Since I am familiar with the debate, I already know the common answers and I am merely setting you (the reader) up for the boo-ya stroke. [↩]
2. This is false. [↩]

1. I don’t believe in atheists.

‘Atheism’ is a very confused concept and I wish for the universe¹ that it is settled once and for all in this essay. I claim that ‘atheist’ has only one coherent sense, and this sense is as metaphysically dogmatic as any religion or ethos that has ever existed. The atheist asserts that ‘there are no gods’² is true.

If you disagree on this definition of ‘atheist’, then I ask you: What exactly distinguishes ‘atheist’ from ‘agnostic’? The two terms are often contrasted with each other, so we can assume that their concepts lie in roughly the same conceptual plane. Here is how ‘atheism’ is commonly defined:

1. Atheists are a- theists; they deny the essential tenet of theism: ‘There is a (at least one) god’ is a true statement. Logically, this is equivalent to saying: ‘There are no gods’ is a true statement. The atheist believes what science tells us, and nothing else.
2. The atheist “doesn’t believe in god/gods”. Atheism is not a claim; atheism is the lack of a claim. The atheist believes what science tells us, and nothing else.

I don’t claim that these exhaust the senses of ‘atheist’, but I claim that these are the two dominant strands. The claims are clearly different: One claims a particular statement true/false, and the other makes no claims.

Chapter 3. No. 1 are the atheists, and no. 2 are the agnostics. If you are not making a strong claim (e.g. ‘I’m pretty sure there are no gods’), then you are an agnostic. Atheists are the extremists along the skeptical continuum. Atheists assert that there are no gods (or they’re pretty darn sure).

To reiterate: If you do not assert ‘there are no gods’ to be true or false, then you are an agnostic. If you would not go so far as to say that you know that gods of any description don’t exist in this universe, outside this universe or anywhere else in the vast scope that potentially constitutes all that exists, then you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

1. even if there are other civilizations out there, it has not yet been decided that ours are not insignificant [↩]
2. of any description (not even one!). And by ‘gods’, I mean any supernatural entities that have/had any hand in the universe. [↩]

A long-range project in development here in the DeepSee labs of fuckphilosophy.com is a vision of Seattle as the American “City of Temples”. In order for Seattle to aspire to adopt this nickname and proceed with the temple-building process, the concept behind this future identity, and especially the  temples themselves, must be democratically recognized by the public as a worthy destiny.¹ Barring that ineventuality, there are a few immediate scale/design issues to consider:

1. How many temples should be built?
2. Where should they be built?
3. What mathematical/physical/astronomical/psychological principles should be embodied in these temples?
4. What materials should be used?
5. How will we protect  the ritual sanctity of the temples?²
6. What broader global role does the City of Temples of the United States play?

These are not insurmountable questions, so the possible failure to realize this vision should not depend on a public consensus on these issues. I implore the Seattle public (forget about the rest of Washington state for right now) to try to imbue yourself with this image of Seattle that the visionary wing of fuckphilosophy.com has come up with.

1. I will leave the political and financial efforts to the future public upswell of support for the project. [↩]
2. …and the ritual sanctity of the City of Temples? [↩]

Facebook is a potluck, twitter is times square. It is clear what Empire Avenue is.

The previous answers grapple with clear senses of the concept ‘intuition’, but I will attempt to discuss the concept more broadly.

I will argue that asserting ‘intuition’ to be synonymous with a form of ‘prediction’ is inaccurate. Intuition is at the very least a faculty of the mind. Beyond that, ‘intuition’ refers to a faculty of the mind that we (to this day) find very mysterious (every term I use is a technical term). Beyond that, this ‘faculty’ is undoubtedly very deep and dear to each of us qua person/individual/self. My final conclusion will be that: ‘Intuition’ (qua faculty) can safely be considered synonymous with ones ‘Guardian Angel’. More details to follow.

If we want to remain safely naturalistic, ‘prediction’ is a form of calculation. If my senses are attuned, most people won’t be happy considering ‘intuition’ a form of ‘calculation’ (neither am I). For all intents and purposes (a tall claim follows), intuition is fruitfully comparable to (what I will call) short-hand thinking. At this rough and ready level, our experience frequently finds analogy in “reading the signs”.

Which leads me to the mystery of ‘intuition’: This mysteriousness arises when people (ordinary people) attempt to explain these thought processes. Another will ask, “How did you know that?” and you will reply “I don’t know”. Implicit to this exchange is a pat-on your higher faculties’ backs (howsoever we decide to define ‘higher faculties’). Forgive my mysterianistic treatment, but mysteries must be treated with mysterianism (among other modes of approach).

As I am attempting to breach the physical barrier and discuss each and everyone’s experience, readers may be justifiably speechless at levels of such intimacy. Intuition can also be safely considered an “inner dialogue” of sorts. Some call it a dialog with ones own “Guardian Angel”, some call it “luck”.

We have decided to get in and get out quit on this point. The final line of the movie reprises an earlier line: Away from the things of man. We unanimously agree that this line should read: A way for the things of man. [#TomHanks #MegRyan #JohnPatrickShanley #JoeversusTheVolcano]

It is common to see “Social Media Experts” tweeting around short links to articles written by other “experts”, the source articles full of nothing but speculation about what Twitter or Facebook (or any #SocialSearch platform) even are. Fuckphilosophy.com has already made the tip of their position known (here and here). Twitter is the public face, the press secretary, the ticker-tape. Twitter is not like television; in fact, Twitter is nearly the opposite of television. Twitter is 100% advertising. Twitter is a marketing #medium. On the face of it, Facebook isn’t a marketing/media platform, but that is what it is turning into.¹

I am calling Twitter: The Democratization of Marketing/Advertising.² Now, just a Twitter account and an idea, and you can be off networking.

And what really makes Twitter beautiful is that it uses SMS.

1. It’s too bad FB couldn’t have remained private – even though my FB is public. [↩]
2. Now, everyone can compete on the the market floor. Back in the days of television, one had to have inordinate amounts of money to put their face and thoughts on the telly. [↩]

The following appears to be clear to everyone here @fuckphilosophy, but it just dawned on us that the connection might not have been made in the #publicsphere: @charliesheen and @aleistercrowley.

Now wait just a second folks. We are NOT insinuating that Sheen-Yus is actually an incarnation of Satan. Just wanted to get that straight.

The present communique is for Charlie Sheen particularly: Look at the case of Aleister Crowley.