1. X is too big to fail, and if it failed bad things would
happen. Therefore the government should give X a bailout.

.. ..

If we accept the idea of something being “too big to fail” as
a reason to justify a bailout, then is the government too big to fail?

.. ..

If you accept that the government is too big to fail, then
the same kind of reasoning applies. The question then is, what would it look
like for “the government to fail” and what could cause a “government to fail”?

.. ..

In the same way a business fails due to lack of funds, the
state could fail for the same reason. ....California....
is a great example of failure since it’s currently so bankrupt, from its
citizens voting massive spending, that it actually talked about giving people “IOU’s”
instead of the tax money they were owed. ....California....
even wanted to get a bailout of its own.

.. ..

"I propose that we should get help from the federal
government if we can again, also like the car manufacturers, prove that we have
our fiscal house in order and that we can solve our problems ourselves but give
us in this emergency kind of a situation or this crisis some addition
money," – Schwarzenegger

.. ..

So, now that we answered what it means for a government to
fail, what would cause it? In ....California....
it was massive spending. If too much spending can cause a state to fail, what
is a bailout? – Massive spending.

.. ..

What does this mean? This means that simply by thinking for
1-2 minutes about the logic behind bailouts, you can be opposed to them *using
the very same reasoning* people use to be in favor of them. If X is too big to
fail, then Y ought to bail it out. Replace X with government and what could you
possibly replace Y with? The only thing truly bankrupt is the logic used by the
socialists in favor of bailouts. (Please don’t point out that Bush & Schwarzenegger
favor bailouts as a way of showing it’s not socialist. Bush & Schwarzenegger
are both socialists in that respect, and simply because you claim to be a
conservative does not mean you are.)

COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE?

            One of the many claims made by incompatibilists, either it be libertarians or hard determinists, is that if determinism is true, then we could not have done otherwise, and if we could not have done otherwise then we can't be considered free agents, let alone morally responsible for whatever action we do. They argue that given a certain situation, we must have the ability to do something other than what we did. This principle has been titled the "Principle of Alternative Possibilities" (PAP) by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt. [1]

PAP: A person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise

            This principle at first appears very intuitive, so intuitive that some philosophers have been said to consider it an a prior truth. How can someone be blamed for doing something, if they could not have done otherwise? One thing to point out is, what people who argue this  'could have done otherwise' principle mean is, that in the exact same circumstances one could have chosen differently. By exact same circumstances, we mean same the state of affairs – every event in the cosmos. The same stars burning at the same temperature, the same emotional state of the agent, every position and velocity of every object, even every atom, in the cosmos.

            However if determinism is true, then we could not have done otherwise in the sense given above. If the universe we live in is a mechanistic machine governed by uniform laws, as the determinist believes, then given the same circumstances, the same outcome will occur. If God cranked the universe's wheel of time back to 3pm the same events that took place at 4pm will occur. So under the assumption of determinism, we could not have done otherwise. This means that if determinism is true, and the PAP principle is true, then the compatibilist conception fails, since the compatibilist conception of freedom is that we are free and morally responsible in a real sense, even under the assumption that determinism is true.

            However the Principle of Alternative Possibilities is false. You can be considered free and morally responsible even if you could not have done otherwise. I will also argue that the concept of an agent doing otherwise or choosing differently in the same circumstances is impossible even under the assumption that determinism is false. Not only this, but I will show that even if we assume an agent can be said to 'do' otherwise, this would only render the agent unfree and by extension not morally responsible for the act.

Is PAP true?

So then, can a person be considered free even if the person could not have done otherwise? Harry Frankfurt has argued a person can, and does so with a thought experiment that takes many forms. His exact argument can be found in his original essay, but the variations will do. The thought experiment goes as follows:

"Bob passionately wants to kill the president, and plans to do so when he comes and speaks in his hometown on Monday. A fringe political group discovers this, and has an invested interest in the president being dead. The night before the president's speech, the group kidnaps Bob and plants a neural-disruption chip in his brain. If Bob has second thoughts, and decides against killing the president, the chip will activate and in turn cause him to kill the president. Bob wakes up, and kills the president. The chip never activated."

            The question is - did Bob kill the president voluntarily, of his freewill? It seems obvious he did. Would he be considered morally responsible for what he has done? Again, yes. Could he have done otherwise? No. The moment that he would have had second thoughts which would have altered his course of action, the chip would have activated rendering him unable to not kill the president. The mere presence of the chip prevented the possibility of doing otherwise, yet he's considered morally responsible for what he did. Now, if he had second thoughts, and the chip was activated then of course he could not be considered free in his assassination. Now some may object to this thought experiment on the grounds that a chip like that may never exist making it cute at best, but nothing of a real challenge to the truth of PAP. There are more down to earth versions. Consider the following:

"Imagine that while Bob is driving, he sees Paul starting to cross the road ahead of him. Bob decides that he does not want to slow down for Paul, and continues on at the same speed. Paul, who is unable to get out of the way of Bob's car, is run over. As a result, Paul is killed instantly.

Assuming that Bob is a rational and sane human being, it seems clear-cut that he is morally responsible for what he did. Now imagine that, unbeknownst to Bob, the road that he was traveling on was covered in ice. Due to the ice, even if Bob had tried to stop the car from hitting Paul, he would not have been able to and Paul would have been killed anyway. Let us further imagine that Bob does not try to stop the car. It seems that we would still want to hold Bob responsible for what he did even though he would have run Paul over regardless of whether or not he hit his brakes. If Bob had hit his brakes, then one might argue that he would not be morally responsible for what he did. However, the fact of the matter is that Bob did not hit his brakes. It seems, then, that Bob is morally responsible for what he did even though he could not have done otherwise."

It seems that the ability to do otherwise is somewhat irrelevant. It seems that what matters is that the person at hand was aware of what's going on, and acted on his desires. In both cases, these men would be considered morally responsible because they were quite aware of what they were doing, and of course they wanted to do what they did.

The Principle of Alternative Possibilities states that a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. However, this is not necessarily the case as shown by Frankfurt. It seems there may be other conditions that must be met for a person to possess freewill.

Doing otherwise?

As explained above, some argue that 'do otherwise' means 'could have chosen different under the same circumstances.' Not just similar circumstances, but the exact same circumstances, and not similar times but at the same time. This means that when the golfer misses the put and says "Ah, I could have made that" and picks the ball up, placing it in the same position, in order to simulate the circumstances, he's not actually 'doing otherwise' in this sense. All factors must be the same, the same stars burning at the same temperature, the same emotional state of the agent, every position and velocity of every object, even every atom, in the cosmos. This is one of the conditions that must be met for the CD (could done otherwise) principle. Another condition is that "I could" or "you could" have done otherwise. In other words, doing otherwise means choosing otherwise, there must be a connection between the act and the agent.

Let's first sketch what 'doing' looks like (choice making).

Richard is driving to his friend David's house which is out of town. As he drives down the road, he encounters a fork in the road where he has two options. The path on the left (A) is a little faster but has an 'under construction' sign, whereas the path on the right (B) takes longer but is construction free. As Richard drives along he thinks back on his last trip to David's where he decided to take the faster path, but as a consequence ran over a large screw which resulted in a flat tire. Richard then decides to take the longer, but safer, path.

    This is simple, but what actually happened? What events took place? How can this event be broken down? First we have Richard the agent. An agent is a being with intentions and goals. Not only is he an agent, but he is a person. Richard is the totality of his character, beliefs and desires.

    Second Richard's driving is for the sake of some goal, namely to arrive at his friends. This means all his actions are corresponding to a desired end. Richard encounters the fork in the road. Data from the world travels to Richard's eyes and eventually to his mind. After this happens an extremely fast and complicated set of processes begin. After the light travels to his Occipital Lobe (the part of the mind that deals with vision), each object is recognized (road, sign etc) and associated with certain meanings. With the available data he then reasons on what action corresponds best to the goal. Since there are two options that best correspond to the goal, he then produces a virtual future for each course of action where he reasons what each action will entail. He taps into his memory of the last visit and remembers what occurred when path A was taken. Path (A) entails he will reach his desired goal faster, but with the risk of getting a flat. Path (B) entails him reaching his desired goal slower, but with the benefit of not getting a flat. With the two virtual futures in his mind, he then selects which of those virtual futures he wants to make an actual future. After all of this is reasoned out, he makes the choice of taking path B.

            A voluntary action (doing) can be therefore reduced to: An agent receives input from the world, examines acquired data, reasons through what possible actions entail (ie: producing virtual futures), selects which virtual future best corresponds to the goal, and eventually acts rendering the virtual future an actual future.

            The fundamental aspect of this process that makes the act Richard's 'doing' and not the act of someone else, or something else is that there is a real connection between which future is actualized and Richard himself. Which future is actualized is determined by Richard's character along with his goals.

            Now lets say 10 minutes after Richard chose path B, we were to 'rewind' time so to speak to the same time in the same circumstances. If determinism is true, then the same outcome of course will occur. All variables will be the same, Richard's emotional state, what's in his field of vision, the position of his head etc. Richard with the same goals, same state of mind, will of course choose path B. What conditions are required for him to do otherwise in the same circumstances? First let's consider what conditions are required for not him doing otherwise, but just the otherwise part – the part where something other or something different can occur at time t under the same state of affairs.

            If the cosmos is uniform in its behaviors governed by laws that in some sense are eternal and unchanging, then determinism is a logical consequence. The only condition that must be the case for determinism to be false is to invoke random events. Random being either uncaused or in some sense 'in principle unpredictable' events. This appears to be the only option, since if the cosmos is uniform in it's behaviors, the only way a different outcome is possible is if you change one of the variables, however once some variable is changed it's no longer the exact same circumstances, but a variation of those circumstances. Imagine we rewind time to time t (time t being a specific time), and let everything play out. If you are to allow for some kind of random or uncaused event, imagine say 10 atoms freak out and change their course, then a different outcome is possible.

            Let us now apply this to the aspect of doing otherwise. Again PAP states that a person can only be considered free or morally responsible if he could have done otherwise in the same circumstances. The important part is not whether a different outcome is possible at time t but that an outcome is different by virtue of the agent doing. In our example with Richard picking a path, we have many steps of the way. We have Richard receiving input from the world, examining acquired data, reasoning through what possible actions entail (ie: producing virtual futures), selecting which virtual future best corresponds to the goal, and eventually acts rendering the virtual future an actual future. The part that can be said to be 'the act of doing' is when Richard selects the virtual, or imagined, futures causing his future actions (moving his arms, etc.) to be in correspondence to the goal. This of course can be further reduced to events going on inside the brain. Richard's character, his beliefs, desires, memories, etc. all are stored in his brain, and play a role in which path he chooses. All of this exists by virtue of a huge nexus of neurons communicating with each other via electric impulse.

            If we are to imagine what is required to change which course of action Richard took at time t, via the use of a random/uncaused event, then we'll no doubt discover it to be some event in the brain. One of the events in the long chain of events must be 'randomized' for him to do otherwise.

The main events are: (1) an agent receives input from the world, (2) examines acquired data, (3) reasons through what possible actions entail (ie: producing virtual futures), (4) selects which virtual future best corresponds to the goal, and eventually acts rendering the virtual future an actual future. The red represents mentally produced events, or mental events.

Richard is at the fork in the road, and all the events listed above are taking place. Now imagine a few of the signals traveling in Richard's brain, say from the part of his mind that contains memories to another part, are disrupted due to a random event causing them to travel to another part of his mind, or to stop traveling altogether. (Keep in mind this is exactly what is required for PAP to work) Richard then ends up still picking path B but turning his steering wheel one inch more to the right than before at time t. Although in a technical sense he did do otherwise since Richard did something different in the same circumstances, but what most supporters of PAP really mean is that a person can make an entirely different choice.

What would it take for Richard to choose path A, or another path? In our thought experiment above we imagined that a few signals were disrupted, but it's been estimated that the human brain contains between eighty five - one hundred billion neurons (85,000,000,000 – 100,000,000,000) so we'll certainly need more than a few connections to be disrupted for an entirely different 'choice' to come out. Let's assume that Richard made the choice on his own, without the intervention of indeterminism, puts 12 billion neurons to use. It seems that to alter the path Richard chooses, we'll have to disrupt at least half of those connections.

The problem here is, random or uncaused events can not be attributed to Richard. If during Richard's reasoning process, a random indeterministic event occurs, resulting in a different outcome from time t, then it no longer is true the choice is the result of Richard. You could not attribute the doing to Richard since the doing is the result of random events. This problem that arises when you attempt to invoke indeterminism to save freewill has been pointed out by the philosopher Daniel Dennett responding to the philosopher Robert Kane:

"The problem is compounded for Kane, since he has to figure out some way to get the undetermined quantum event to be not just in you but yours. He wants above all for the decision to be "up to you," but if the decision is undetermined - the defining requirement of libertarianism - it isn't determined by you, whatever you are, because it isn't determined by anything. Whatever you are, you can't influence the undetermined event - the whole point of quantum indeterminacy is that such quantum events are not influenced by anything. [...] But in order to do this, there has to be more to you than just some mathematical point, you have to be someone; you have to have thoughts - memories, plans, beliefs, and desires - that you've acquired along the way..."  

Daniel Dennett - Freedom Evolves: pg – 123

The Principle of could done otherwise states that we can only be free if we could have done otherwise, however for there to even be a 'do otherwise' there must be a do-er responsible for the otherwise – as we have seen the only possible condition for 'otherwise' is to invoke random or uncaused events. When random or uncaused events are introduced then the link between the do-er and the otherwise is lost. Statements such as "Richard choose path B" presuppose that there's a connection between the agent and the choice, there must be a causal connection, a real connection, between the agent and the choice otherwise the agent is not responsible for the doing. So on closer examination the statement "You're only free if you could have done otherwise" in the senses listed at the top of the chapter entails a contradiction, since one can only be considered a the 'do-er' if what was 'done' was directly linked to the 'do-er' and not the result of random events.

Thus, PAP entails the impossible. It's impossible in short because for an agent to 'do' is only possible under determinism, and 'otherwise' (in the senses above) is only possible under indeterminism.

Don't blame me, I did otherwise!

            So far I have argued that not only is PAP false, but entails somewhat of a contradiction. Here I will argue that even if we grant 'doing otherwise' is possible, it would only render the agent not responsible for the action. As said above, if the action is the result of random events this severs the connection between agent and choice. A consequence of this is that the agent can't possibly be held responsible for what occurred. An interesting thought experiment has been published by the historian Richard Carrier. Although the quote is pertaining to libertarian freewill, it touches on the PAP principle in the sense of doing otherwise in the exact same circumstances.

"Image two parallel universes, identical in every detail, and imagine a man in each universe, identical in their character, knowledge, desires and everything else, standing in totally identical circumstances. Now imagine that one of these men chooses to kill his wife, but the other man chooses not to. What could possibly explain this? Since the two situations and the two men are identical in every respect, there can be no cause whatsoever for either man's choice. This is what Moreland's theory entails.

But this has an unacceptable consequence. For it means that neither these men's desires, nor their knowledge, nor their moral character - nothing at all - can be blamed for having caused their choice. Moreland even agrees: "no description of our desires, beliefs, character, or other aspects of our makeup and no description of the universe prior to and at the moment of our choice...is sufficient to entail that we did it" (138-9). But this means that we could not even say that the first man was evil and the second good, since that would assume the first man's badness caused him to kill, while the other man's goodness caused him to refrain. But these men are identical, so one cannot be evil and the other good. Moreland might say he is evil or good after the deed, but that means we could not say he did what he did because he was a good or bad man. In fact, we could not say at all why he acted. What quality in either man that is uniquely a part of "him" can be blamed for causing his particular choice? There is none.
   
Now imagine that this man is you, and in one universe you kill your wife, in the other you do not. What would you think of yourself then? You would know that nothing causes your actions - not your character, nor your environment, nor the surrounding circumstances, nor your knowledge, not even your love of your wife. Nothing. Your choice to kill or refrain is purely a result of happenstance: whichever the universe you are in is a mere luck of the draw. Imagine how you would feel, having learned that it is nothing but the result of unpredictable randomness whether you kill your wife or not at this very moment. Shocking, yes? Imagine that you refrain from killing, but could step into a time machine, run the universe back a million times, and watch yourself again each time, and then saw that sometimes you killed and sometimes you didn't, even though each time all the circumstances including your thoughts, desires, character, everything were the same. There would be no rhyme or reason to why you did this one or the other. It would be a mere shake of the dice. This is the nightmare of a world that Moreland's theory describes." - Richard Carrier - A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism

If we could do otherwise, it would most probably be like having Tourettes Syndrome. Having no control over our actions, being the victims of the random, and being reduced to uncontrollable random machines. Thomas Pink has mentioned this issue with conceptions of freewill that rely on indeterminism

"There is yet another problem that faces the libertarian. Is libertarian freedom something we could ever exercise, in the only way that freedom ever can be exercised, though what we deliberately do, in genuine and intelligible action? Libertarian freedom seems to reduce what we do to no more than blind, undirected motion – to the equivalent to jerks and spasms." Thomas Pink - Free Will: A Very Short Introduction – pg 83

 

What do we mean?

          Some of those reading this may be convinced in what has just been said, and some of you may already be familiar with the topic and had been convinced long ago – yet some of us will continue to say 'sorry, I could have done it but…' or 'I could have done otherwise' casually in our daily lives. It rolls of the tongue, and we mean something when we say it. What do we actually mean? Sometimes language can be a difficult thing to get around in discussions of philosophy, and getting a clear understanding on what words mean, and what we mean should be an important goal when we consider certain ideas. The principles that have been talked about above have dealt with doing something different in the same circumstances at the same time, yet on closer examination we discover that in practice we run into trouble, yet we will continue use that kind of language.

            Is it possible we mean something incoherent? An interesting example of this might be the idea of changing the future. You'll hear politicians say it all the time – "Let's change the future!" – change the future? From what to what? The future is what will happen, what are you going to change? That may not be a good example, since one just a moment of reflection we discover that what people are really getting at is the idea of changing the anticipated future. If things are to continue as they are now, then we ought to expect X, thus changing how things are now will alter what we are to expect. Another possible example is the idea of having a mind - or more specifically the statement "I have a brain." Our scientific understanding of the mind is that it is the manifestation of a kind of brain. The self in a way resides in the mind, which is the product of the brain. So to say "I have a brain" is somewhat like saying "my brain has a brain." Some have even argued that we have a cognitive dispassion to divide the world into two kinds of things – minds and objects. So notions of a disembodied self come so natural that we find our self speaking in a way that presupposes the truth of dualism. Another possibility, one that I have speculated on, is that since the great majority of our ancestors held certain religious or superstitious views, our language and way of speaking naturally reflects that.

                        What I think we may mean when we say such things is not that we could have done differently given the exact circumstances, but rather, we could have done otherwise if we had known better. We could have done otherwise if we had chosen differently. That's utterly uncontroversial, since it's quite obvious that different outcomes are entail by different circumstances. So could it be that all we're really saying is "If I knew what I know now, I would have done differently" or "If I had chosen differently, I would have done differently" – It's hard to say.

1. Harry Frankfurt, "Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility," in Free Will, ed.
Gary Watson ( Oxford Univerity Press, 2003), 167.
2. Shariff, G.A. 1953. Cell counts in the primate cerebral cortex. J. Comp. Neurol. 98:381–400

          When some people discover the mechanistic or scientific explanations for certain things pertaining to a human experience, some will have an intuitive form of skepticism. You will often hear something to the effect that "Fine, but it does not feel as though X is the result of Y." X being some kid of experience, such as the experience of love, the experience of consciousness, or the experience and conviction that we posses freewill. Y being some kind of natural process or material process.

The argument often goes as follows:

David: It's pretty much universally agreed, by scientists at least that subjective experience is a consequence of a kind of physical brain. All kinds of things support the idea that a physical brain is required for subjective experience -- like the fact that alcohol and other physical substances can change our conscious states, that degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's or physical injuries can seriously impair or even destroy conscious states, and the fact that we don't expect young children to be capable of the types of abstract reasoning that require more fully developed brains. So the idea that we need immaterial souls or whatnot to account for our minds, at least at the moment, is ad hoc.

Gatlin: I see. That may be true, but I still can't overcome my conviction that all of this subjective experience I feel is something above and beyond just matter in motion. It just does not feel as though consciousness is the result of 'just' physical processes going on in my brain. It feels like there's something going on that's immaterial.

            There are many examples where this kind of 'from the gut' argument is made. In the context of accounts for love, spiritual experience, freedom, awareness. The argument is never an argument using some kind of objective measure, but rather an argument from experience, an argument from conviction.  I think this kind of reasoning may be a mistake, at least in the context of trying to explain certain experiences. I'll begin making my case after a quote reportedly from Wittgenstein

"Wittgenstein: Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the Sun went round the Earth, rather than that the Earth was rotating?"
 
 His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth."
 
 And Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like, if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

            It's interesting to consider this. What would it look like if the earth was rotating, and not the sun? It obviously, would look exactly the same. We could ask the same question to the skeptic who asserts that it does not feel like love is a natural thing, or that consciousness is physically possible. What would it feel like if love was a natural thing? What would it feel like if subjective experience was the result of only a physical brain? Would we 'feel' the atoms responding appropriately? Would we go "All right, now based on the situation, I should be feeling high levels of dopamine and norepinephrine and probably low levels of serotonin, oh boy here it comes! Aw, I love you!" What would a naturalistic/compatibilist notion of freewill feel like? Could we 'feel' our thoughts if the physicalist notion of the mind is true?

            The main issue with this is, to claim that it would feel differently if our minds were 'physically possible' presupposes some type of way of comparing the two, and unless God grants us access to two different universes where love is magic and then love is natural, we have no way of possibly knowing. It's not as though we're talking about petting a dog, and someone claims that this dog has no hair. It's clear we could say something to the effect that it would feel like something else to pet a bald dog. Of course a bald dog and a furry dog are something that can be compared.  So it seems such a statement could never be epistemicaly justified.

            When I encounter a person like the hypothetical character as Gatlin, I find it fun to reverse the argument. "That's fine" I would reply "It just feels so much like my mind is the result of a physical brain." – I'm at least justified in saying that, although I may not know what it would feel like (assuming it would feel differently) to have a immaterial mind, I'm least am pretty sure what a materially produced mind feels like, since we're certain it's true we have one. Some may claim it feels as though our minds are magical, which leads to the conviction that they are, but like the rotation of the earth, it may be that a physicalist mind feels the same.

Atheism & Meaning

The following is a response to a small dinner table conversation that was made yesterday on the topic of meaning in the context of an atheistic worldview (godless worldview). I was asked whether, as an atheist, I find meaning in things, and whether I find there is a purpose to life.

First let's try to figure out what's being said, and what it means.

MEANING

The most basic form of meaning is the meaning of words. "Cat" refers to a specific animal, with specific features (mammal, furry etc). The word "Cat" itself would be meaningless if it did not refer to something outside of itself. One can't imagine a set of symbols simply meaning something intrinsically. Lopletrox is a meaningless for the very reason that those symbols do not refer to any object or state of affairs, however, the moment a object/state of affairs is designated for the word Lepletrox the word has a meaning.

So it appears that meaning in the context of language is relational to objects/states of affairs. The meaning of words is therefore extrinsic (not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality), and not intrinsic (belonging to a thing by its very nature)

The meaning of words therefore can be summarized as: Word X has meaning IF X refers to Y

What about the meaning of objects or persons? Think about something that has meaning, or means something to you, and try and pin down what about that thing or person is different that it is meaningful?

I have a small teddy bear I named Taker (for when I was younger, I took him everywhere). It's the same bear that was given to me when I was born. This small teddy bear has a great deal of meaning to me. When I put taker next to another teddy bear that does not have meaning it becomes clear why Taker has meaning while the other does not. Taker has been with me my entire life and is probably one of the first objects I've ever touched. Taker has meaning because it's associated with certain valued memories or certain rare moments. So again, it appears that the meaning of taker is relational and extrinsic. However, not like words, taker refers to certain mental/subjective states. Taker's meaning exists under the conditions that he refers to certain valued or rare events/memories.

So the meaning of objects & persons can be summarized as: X has meaning IF X refers to certain valued mental-states in person P

The commonality of these types of meaning are that they are A) Relational (quality only exists in relation to something else) B) Extrinsic (not inherent) C) Subjective (requires a mind to exist to make the reference of words, requires a mind to be referred to in objects/persons)

Now, when I was asked about meaning I tried my best to summerise this. Mike E. after I was done, said 'basically, there is no meaning' to which I replied that there was, he replied 'it's not objective meaning'

OBJECTIVE MEANING?

What about objective meaning? What does this mean? Let's first make the distinction between objective and subjective.

Subjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject
2. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience
 

Objective
1. existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

2.  intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

"The earth is round" is objective since it's truth is independent of thought or minds. The existence of agents is not a condition that is required for such a statement to be true. "The sun is warm" is subjective in the sense that 'warmth' is a feeling. Sensations exist in minds. The statement 'the sun is warm' can only be true if there exists agents/minds. Now, there is another sharp distinction that needs to be made before everyone gets confused. A subjective statement can be objectively true and still remain subjective. "I am warm" refers to a subjective state of the mind, but it's truth is objective since my my feeling of warmth remains to be true regardless of other minds. You can objectively measure my subjective feeling. Now, with the sun, we may label 100 degrees as 'hot' and therefore the sun was hot before the existence of life. But that's simply a label referring to an objective state of affairs, namely the measurable temperature. The subjective experience of such objective states of affairs, such as warmth is still subjective although its of objective states of affairs! Sorry, just read that twice and you'll understand.

So can something have 'objective meaning?' - After thinking about whats required for something to have meaning the answer it clearly no. If [X has meaning IF X refers to certain valued mental-states in person P] is true, then objective meaning becomes an oxymoron. Things have meaning in relation to subjects, so how can you have a subjective-objective thing? It would be like saying "It's my objective thought" - If objective means 'existing independent of thought' how can you have a thought that is independent of thought? I'll give you $500 if you have an objective thought.

So if all that has been said is true, then Mike is right, under atheism there is no objective meaning - but that's only true because objective meaning is an oxymoron.

PURPOSE?

For something to have a purpose, by definition, it must be something that is designed/formed/created with an intention/goal in mind. A fork has a purpose only by virtue that it was designed with the intention of a certain use. Intentionality is the key to purpose. So of course in an atheistic universe, the universe and man has no purpose since it was not designed with any intentionality. Forks, houses, TVs, job classes still have purpose, since they are motivated by intention. So to say "if atheism is true there is no purpose" is simply false.

Some may say, and Mike E. will or has "Yeah, but it's not ultimate purpose." If what is meant by this is, ultimately the entire cosmos has no purpose. Of course, but that's true with god as well. Was god created/designed with a goal in mind? No, by definition god just exists eternally. So the same argument could made against theism "Since god has no purpose, there's no ultimate purpose in a theistic universe"

Again, one may respond with "(1) God gives himself purpose!" or "(2) He has intrinsic purpose!" - First if (1) is true, then the claim "there's no purpose in an atheist universe" becomes false, because man could then assign purpose to himself or the cosmos. Second, (2) is just nonsense. 'intrinsic purpose' is a compete oxymoron. For something to be intrinsic, it must be inherent or 'by its very nature' - How can something be "designed with an intention" by its very nature? Purpose by definition is a quality that is only possible in relation to a mind. If it's a properties is intrinsic, it's not in relation to anything. So the whole idea of 'intrinsic purpose' is  contradictory.

Conclusion: In an atheistic worldview there can be meaning, it's not objective since that's impossible and contradictory. There is no purpose to life or the cosmos, but that's true of a god himself.

    One of the claims made by theists is that "without god, there is no purpose, and no value" or some specific that an atheistic universe has no "ultimate" or "intrinsic" purpose or value. I think this is very naive.

    For something to have a purpose, by definition, it must be something that is designed/formed/created with an intention/goal in mind. A fork has a purpose only by virtue that it was designed with the intention of a certain use. Intentionality is the key to purpose. So of course in an atheistic universe, the universe and man has no purpose since it was not designed with any intentionality. Forks, houses, TVs, job classes still have purpose, since they are motivated by intention. So to say "if atheism is true there is no purpose" is simply false.

    I can almost feel my theist readers saying "Yeah, but it's not ultimate purpose." If what is meant by this is, ultimately the entire cosmos has no purpose. Of course, but that's true with god as well. Was god created/designed with a goal in mind? No, by definition god just exists eternally. So the same argument could made against theism "Since god has no purpose, there's no ultimate purpose in a theistic universe"

    Again, I can feel my theistic readers say "(1) God gives himself purpose!" or "(2) He has intrinsic purpose!" - First if (1) is true, then the claim "there's no purpose in an atheist universe" becomes false, because man could then assign purpose to himself or the cosmos. Second, (2) is just nonsense. 'intrinsic purpose' is a compete oxymoron. For something to be intrinsic, it must be inherent or 'by its very nature' - How can something be "designed with an intention" by its very nature? Purpose by definition is a quality that is only possible in relation to a mind. If it's a properties is intrinsic, it's not in relation to anything. So the whole idea of 'intrinsic purpose' is childish and contradictory.

    What about value? The arguments are quite similar. Value again only exists in relation to minds. Something is given value by virtue of it being desired. Water and food have value only because they are desired. This is so devastatingly obvious its sad I even must make this point. Consider how economics work, the price or value of something goes up with the demand (desire for it). Again, this is a completely godless process. You don't need gods, just minds, which in an atheistic universe can and do exist. Intrinsic value is again an oxymoron for the same reasons.

    So for all you guys out there who keep pounding this drum, just stop, you're simply embarrassing yourself.

Is it really rude to attempt to convert someone into believing as you do? What does it mean to 'press' your beliefs on someone? I would argue this kind of thinking can be (1) self-refuting, and on closer examination could even be considered (2) cold hearted and immoral. The argument consists of (3) premises.

1. A belief is either true or false.

This is a rather simple premise, and is hard to find anyone who disagrees. A belief or set of beliefs can be reduced to statements about the world. When one says "I believe the basket ball is in the closet" one is claiming to belief the statement "the basket ball is in the closet" is true. The statement is true if it corresponds to reality, which is to say, such a statement about the world is true if it maps on to the world.

There are some though, and they are not hard to find, who will object saying "Those beliefs are true to them" or "We're all right in our own way" and often resort to the Elephant in the room story. In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to try and discover what it is. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective. Each blind man says "It's a rope!" or "It's a wall!" the story ends as follows:

"They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the thin we're touching is ." Each one of them told what he thought it was. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

If you find yourself in a conversation on religion with a liberal minded person, you will hear this story many times. It's the "We're all right in our own way" kind of mentality that is more of a preschool "We're all winners!" type of thinking. One blatant flaw in the story is, although each one felt a different part of the same "truth" - they were all wrong! It was NOT a rope, a wall, a tree, it was an Elephant! Each man made FALSE statements about the world, namely that the object they were touching was something other than an Elephant.

2. Holding true beliefs is better than holding false ones.
(one is better off holding true beliefs)

Beliefs translate into actions, and actions effect people. If those beliefs are false, you're almost certainly wasting a lot of time. Consider the belief that the gods require a child sacrifice in exchange for rain this month. If such a belief is true, then it may be justified, if however that belief is false, you're simply killing an innocent child. What people believe matters, it matters only because of the potentially wasteful or harmful implications of of those beliefs being false.

3. Helping people in ways that is better for them is good.

If people are better off holding true beliefs, and helping people in ways that is better for them is good, then it follows that helping people hold true beliefs is good. Of course, helping people hold true beliefs can only be done by providing good reasons and argument, which is precisely what 'converting someone' ultimately is. If you agree with premise 1, 2, and 3 you simply can not condemn or criticize someone for making attempts to 'convert the lost.'

Earlier I also claimed this kind of reasoning, namely the arguments that 'converting' people is rude, is not only immoral and cold hearted, but self refuting. To better understand how this is the case, we must turn to the actual definition for 'convert.'

convert. (v) - The American Heritage® Dictionary
1) To change (something) into a different form or properties.
2) To persuade or induce to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief.

The second definition given is more appropriate given the context. To convert someone is to persuade them into believing whatever proposition is being presented.

persuade. (v)
1) To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty.

To be more specific, to 'convert' someone is to persuade them by means of argument and reason. So if you grant the definition of convert, or persuade, any instance where someone attempts to convince someone of a proposition by means of reason or argument is by definition attempting to convert that person. Therefore the very act of telling someone they are rude for attempting to convert others, if followed by reasons like "I think you should not do this for reason X" is by definition an act of persuasion which is what converting someone is! So to convince one that converting others is rude is in itself a form of conversion!

The entire complaint is self-refuting.

This kind of response may be so popular, and I apologize if I sound harsh, is because the majority of the population hate philosophy, hate thinking, and hate truth. People are obsessed with what 'feels good to me' rather than what is true. People are obsessed in preserving diversity of opinions by condoning those who try to unite. Beliefs about the nature of reality have become more like what flavor ice cream you like where it makes little sense to evaluate flavor preference as 'true' or 'false'; 'I like chocolate, it's good for me, don't try and change me' - the reality is of course that beliefs about the cosmos are not like this, you are either right about them or you're not - and truth should become what we strive for.

The one campaign is getting more popular, and I recently saw a commercial they put on youtube. When I hear about big humanitarian groups making claims about solving the world's problems, I always get skeptical.

The ad is vague on what 'fighting world poverty' would entail, and even say "There's not two sides to this issue" - Vague language and bold un-disagreeable-statements raises a red flag in my mind as another political game. So I visited their website.

I spend a few minutes just trying to find what their solution is, I notice most of these 'save the world' websites have an explanation of their solution in a hard to find spot (not intentionally I'm sure). There was that "invisible children" movement that focus on a bad situation in Uganda where kids were constantly avoiding the tyrannical government, where I spent literally an hour trying to find what their solution was, I never found it and had to be explained by a friend, and it seemed she wasn't really sure either.

Here's what I find

For every $100 the U.S. government spent in 2004, only 25-50 cents was spent on the poorest countries of the world. When asked, most Americans think we are spending $15-20, not 25-50 cents, on international assistance. However, with just a 1% increase-or another $1 for every $100, the U.S. could lead a global effort to help poor countries meet international development targets.

Surprise surprise! Raise TAXES, SPEND our money! That ought to fix it! I'm sure the money will go to doing what it's already doing, literally flying planes over villages dumping boxes full of food. I've seen a video, it's really neat actually. But what does this even do? Why are they poor in the first place? What is the CAUSE? Why not fix that? Why put a weekly band aid on the problem?

Also, these campaigns speak as though these people will die if we don't help, well if that's true how are they there to begin with? I'm sure some of these villages have been there for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. If it was true that our help was a necessary condition for their survival then how did they survival before us? The small tribes who truly needed help don't exist, they died out!

Experts agree that investing in education is one of the best ways to reduce poverty and fight the spread of AIDS, especially among girls. For less than the amount of money that Europeans and Americans spend on pet food every year, basic education could be provided for every child in the world.

Notice they don't put the yearly amount Europeans & Americans spend on pet food each year, which is $15,000,000,000. Also, why input the Europeans yearly pet food spending? One is trying to get kids to vote in AMERICA. It seems they added the UK's pet food spending to make the number twice as big to justify spending more of your money, and still use their pet-food analogy.

After all of this, guess what we find in their "About One"

Are you asking for money?
ONE isn't asking for your money, we're asking for your voice.

Wonderful, my voice! But wait...
 

What is ONE?
ONE is a new effort by Americans to rally Americans – ONE by ONE – to fight the emergency of global AIDS and extreme poverty. ONE is students and ministers, punk rockers and NASCAR moms, Americans of all beliefs and every walk of life, united as ONE to help make poverty history. ONE believes that allocating an additional ONE percent of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the world's poorest countries.

Wait what? Allocating an addition one percent? Of what? Oh yeah TAXES! That's clever "one" as in, their demands for increasing taxes. Maybe other liberals should adopt that idea, and name their campaign "50!" or "70" or "100 Socialism"

Why ONE percent?
Americans have always been a generous people – just look at the outpouring of support for the victims of the tsunami. Yet, most Americans would be surprised to learn that less than ONE percent of the federal budget is currently marked for fighting AIDS and poverty around the world. Surveys show people think it is over 15%.

ONE percent of the U.S. budget is approximately $25 billion, and redirecting that much more money will take time. Directed to honest governments, private charities and faith-based organizations, this support would provide the tools and resources they need to really make a difference.

My lord (oops! I'm an atheist!) these groups are so clever! They can justify "we're not asking for money" now because they have yet to get enough dopey kids to vote for their economic policies. Even then, it's not true they're asking - they don't even ask for your money, they will force you to give up your money! At least a robber is a bit more honest about their intentions when they put a gun to your head and ask for your wallet.

It's interesting to wonder how much money has been spent on promoting this ONE thing, a great website, tons of celebrities, this must be costing them millions. Also, have you seen their celebrity line up? They have everyone on board. Justin Timberlake, Steve wonder, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Bono from U2 etc. I wonder how much money they have, it seems 50-cent is also worried. Yes, 50 cent. Almost all of these celebrities have enough money to probably buy every person in Africa a laptop, and they're asking we fork up our money to through food at people.

I'm sorry, I'm just skeptical.

It's interesting the pope would say such a thing, not the parts on Islam, but the part about violence not being incompatible with "god's nature" - If i were a Catholic, I'd be disappointed that my pope had never read anything in the bible, one or two minutes will find that the bible-god is not your soft a cuddly friend.

Of course, this is only counting the events where a number of victims were specified, since we're uncertain of how many people, and animals, god killed in the flood, it would be unfair to make any assumptions. It's worth posting them though.

LOVE ME

OR ELSE...

In discussions with religious people, often the more liberal Christians will paint their god as this modest loving person who only wants a little love back. 1 John 4:8 is often quoted "God is love!"

Is this an accurate picture? Is Jealous (god's name) the kind of 'being' any of us would in practice consider kind?

Imagine you're in a relationship, and your boyfriend/girlfriend says "I demand that you love me, and if do not I will punish you"

What would you make of this? Most of us who are mentally healthy would consider this a little abusive and tyrannical. If you are a female, and your boyfriend is larger than you, you may even be afraid.

But when you reflect on it, isn't this the kind of attitude Jealous has? Is god a modest friend, or something of an egotistical abusive dictator boyfriend?

Consider the first commandment:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me." - Exodus 20:3

or to quote Jesus

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." - Mark 12:30

Sounds fair, but then consider the fact that this is not a request, but a commandment.

What kind of psychological problems must someone have to DEMAND love? Or even worse to make it illegal not to love that person?

So what do we deserve as a punishment for breaking the first commandment? The bible says breaking a commandment is a sin (1 John 3:4), and that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), and ultimately results in eternal damnation where we will be "cast into a FURNACE OF FIRE" (Matt 13:42).

Not only this but the god of the bible gets jealous if we decide to worship some other god (Exodus 34:14), and supposedly it's a virtue to FEAR him (Leviticus 25:17).

Is this the kind of person anyone would respect? Earlier I compared the god of the bible to an abusive boyfriend, but when you reflect on all of the previous verses, the man in the example was rather modest compared to the monster described in this holy book. To be more accurate in the analogy:

Imagine you're in a relationship, and your boyfriend/girlfriend says "I demand that you love me, I establish it as the law of the house, and if you do not love me back, I will throw you in the oven to burn!"

Is this "love?" Would anyone respect such a person who has an attitude like this? Another analogy

Imagine a new president is elected, and the first thing he says on national television is "I am your new dictator, and I shall make it illegal to disagree with me, if you do you will be put in prison"

Is this the kind of president anyone would respect? Yet, this is exactly what we find in the bible as a description of god. He is a dictator by definition, he commands we love him, at one time made it illegal to not-love him, says we deserve to die in doing so, and ultimately throws us in hell to burn for not being slaves to his tyranny. If you disagree with the previous statement, you disagree with the bible.

Most common Objection:

1. God is not a 'dictator,' he gives us freewill to choose him or not!

The first part is simply false.

A) dictator n. - An absolute ruler. A tyrant; a despot.
B) tyrant n. - An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.

If you consider the bible-god to be 'all-powerful' then by definition he is a dictator.

Second, fine we have a choice - just as the abused wife has a choice. The wife can choose to not-love her husband and get a beating, just we can choose to not to love Jealous and get hell.

Of course we have nothing to fear, Jealous doesn't exist, and it's sad that some think he does, and on top of that pretend to worship such a monster.

God's policy is truly "Love me, or else.."

One curios pattern I find when discussing religion, and of course Christianity (it's hard not to), I notice when people discover I'm an atheist, they demand that I justify my 'rejection' of Christianity, or 'investigate Christianity harder' as if I was rejecting the 'round-earth-theory' or something.

I of course think this is beyond ridiculous. I do not need 'investigate hard' the claims of the bible to reject them. That's almost insulting. Now, the reader may be thinking "Well that's rather close minded, you should always invest lots of time studying claims and beliefs before you reject their validity"

It's my position that nobody does this in practice. Consider these claims:

Alright, who believes any of these? ... It's my guess nobody reading this believes these claims.

Imagine you see a women reading one of these at the drug store, and you look at the head line and chuckle "Oh brother, do you really think people believe that stuff" to which the women replies with a rude look on her face "Yes, I believe them. Why have you rejected these? You need to spend more time investigating these claims, really consider them hard before you reject them"

Anyone in that situation would probably be deeply disturbed by this person, and calmly walk away.

This is how I, and I'm sure many others, feel when asked to "study, consider, and investigate" the bible before you even think of rejecting it! All you need to do is read a page or so, understand it's ancient mythology, just like the rest, and go back to reading something worth your time.

Some of my religious readers might be thinking "What! Of course nobody is going to believe 'dick Cheney is a robot' - the claims of the bible are not even close to being that fantastic!"

Oh? Let's consider a few claims of the bible:

1) the universe was created in six literal days
2) women come from a man's rib
3) a snake spoke human language....(genesis 3:4)
4) a donkey spoke human language...(numbers 22:28)
5) a bush spoke human language (corrected by Chris)
6) Giants exist/existed................(genesis 6:4)
7) Dragons exist/existed...........(rev. 12:9)
8) Ghosts exist
9) Spirits exists
10) A virgin gave birth
11) God(s) exist
12) A man lived to 930 years old

The bible is much more fantastic than these magazine claims. The claims made by the weekly world news are actually more reasonable than some of the claims in the bible! Most have less ad-hoc assumptions.

Dick Cheney is a robot!

We have evidence of:
- Dick Cheney
- Robotics

So this claim is actually possible in principle, and rests of two parts that have foundation. The same is true for the others, we know of Al Queda, and mosquitoes.

We have NO examples of spirits, gods, talking snakes, & virgins giving birth. In fact we have evidence against most of them, in the fact that they contradict understood science or physics.

So no, I don't need some big justification to reject the bible. No, I don't need to waste my time 'studying' the bible to reject it, all I have to do is read a few pages of it, that's reason enough.

If you insist that I do, then I'll ask you to study long and hard the claims of the weekly world news, if you don't you just have a double standard.

Watch out for the killer mosquitoes!