Students for an Educational Society: Taking Aim at Cliffe Knechtle and Then Some

What changes societies?

Karl Marx wrote his Manifesto...

The SDS touted "participatory democracy". Tom Hayden still uses the term...

There have been famous populist leaders adored by the masses...

Howard Dean said recently "We don't need a celebrity we need a system." He might have done well to add "We don't need political or philosophical mumbo-jumbo."

So what changes societies? If we need "a system" Howard WHAT system?

A grass roots system. That's what changes societies. Not political gobbledygook. Not a celebrity because a celebrity's just a one shot deal and when he's gone so is his message. Not philosophy. Not some book. Not pleading with the powerful.

So ask yourself why progressivism has been on the wane for the past thirty years. It's because there hasn't been progressivism at the grass roots level.

What HAS been at the grass roots level? The answer: religion. In your face. With a physical presence. Churches. Places of worship. At every crossroads. On every mainstreet in America. Through and through every red (and blue) state you see on the map. Endoctrinating their listeners. Getting their message across. Is it any WONDER Bush is president? With a system like that?

How do expect things will EVER change? With an indoctrination network like that.

And the question is: What are we going to do about it? What is anyone going to do about it? What are YOU going to do about it?

The stuff fundamentalist religion teaches is crap. And there is no organized counterforce. No vehicle for enlightenment. No "AntiChurch" going around giving people an intelligent perspective. Certainly not at a grass roots level. Really hardly AT ALL.

There is maybe not much chance of changing the mind of older people. Relatively speaking. There is more hope for young people. Before their minds become embalmed with crap.

But there's worry there too. Fundamentalist religion isn't just active on every streetcorner in America. It's also all across the airwaves and also at colleges and universities where the young are "housed" ... (echoing The Port Huron Statement...).

I'm thinking specifically of preacher Cliffe Knechtle. He goes around to campuses like Harvard MIT Stanford Berkeley spreading the "word"...I don't know about across the nation but at least here in New England his stuff is all over cable tv. Who is going to fight this stuff?

Let me tell you. Cliffe Knechtle is talented engaging and subtle but what he's preaching is deceitful CRAP. Pure crap. Unfortunately most people even intelligent kids at universities and many of the educated don't thave the intellectual tools respond.

I'm going stop there.

But let me ask once again.

What are we to do about it???

What is anyone going to do about it???

What are YOU going to do about it?

 

"So ask yourself why progressivism has been on the wane for the past thirty years. It's because there hasn't been progressivism at the grass roots level."

None at all? So you're not aware of the so-called "anti-globalization" movement? You're not aware of the 50,000+ people who took the streets of Seattle to shut down the WTO ministerial meetings? (Tom Hayden was there, btw)

You're not aware of the mass actions in Quebec City months before 9-11?

This groundswell of progressive grassroots activism is the most powerful since the 60s. I'm surprised to hear you not mention any of it. Sure, 9-11 made many of these movements crawl fairly deep into their shells, but now, thankfully that's beginning to change again.

 

I wanted to get back to this thread of mine all week but couldn't because of work. I wrote some things here last night but they were completely inadequate so I've gone back and re-edited everything.

The cases of grass roots activism Revo mentions are very important. But they are not nearly enough to bring about major change. They don't have the breadth or the penetration. They're limited to a few big demonstrations in a few big cities. They don't touch the vast conservative heartland at all.

Why not?

Because mainstreet USA is under the thumb of fundamentalist religion with its vast ready-made network of churches and organizations throughout the country on the most basic grass roots level. The media likewise is saturated.

Whole generations are being raised on false ideas one after another.

Progressives have nothing to compare to it. What progressives have to compare to this monster is infinitesimal.

Is it any wonder more and more reactionaries end up in office every time there's an election?

If you've got whole families spending half their evenings at the local church and the rest of it watching Jerry Falwell on TV with the kids having prayer vigils at lunchtime outside school by the flagpole you're not exactly going to end up with a progressive free and tolerant society. Welcome to the Dark Ages.

Worst of all there's virtually no counterforce to what's taking place.

There needs to be a well defined well organized effort at the grass roots level to fight against the false and destructive doctrines of immoral religion.

I guess it seems not only like a vague but also an insurmountable problem. Even for me as I sit here writing this. But it is a very real problem. Maybe the biggest problem this nation faces at this juncture in history. Maybe even the world.

What can possibly be done?

On the one hand you have to have the tools. You have to be able to
counter the arguments of people like Cliffe Knechtle. I guess that's where I come in. And anyone else who feels they're up to the task.

And then you have have an organization and forums and you have to confront people at every turn.

It's like we need an AntiChurch. On every streetcorner in America. Any AntiProphets out there? It needs to stick out like a sore thumb. Well, one wants a positive image but it needs to be something nobody misses and it needs to have grass roots penetration. At the flagpole at lunchtime.

But at the very least there needs to be an organized educational entity fighting against this thing.


***

I'll probably add more later. Something "intellectually concrete". A tool people can use. You've got to start somewhere.

 

Here's one tool people can use.

An intellectual tool. An intellectual weapon. You better use it.

You have to start somewhere.

Religious people use the "creator" argument. Cliffe Knechtle uses it himself. In academic circles it's known as "The Argument From Design".

You need to be able to respond to the creator argument.

The way the creator argument goes is that everything we make we first have to design by our intelligence. A car or a book doesn't appear out of nothing. And we see how vast and complicated the universe is and how intricate life is and so by extension there must have been a creator.

Makes sense doesn't it?

Well. Not really.

Why not?

Because it explains NOTHING.

Because if provides NO USEFUL INFORMATION.

It provides no knowledge that can be used for anything.

It leaves you right back where you started.

In the final analysis it is WORTHLESS.

But in fact it is WORSE than worthless.

And how might that be?

Well if you have something in front of you and you don't know where it came from and you say "It was created" well that's fine and good but it doesn't tell you anything helpful.

It doesn't tell you how what when or where the thing was made.

It doesn't explain to you how it works.

It doesn't help you know how to make one yourself.

It doesn't tell you who made it.

It doesn't tell you why.

It doesn't tell you the motives.

It doesn't tell you if the creator was god or satan or bubba.

It doesn't tell you if it was a good guy or a bad guy.

It doesn't tell you what you're supposed to do with it.

It doesn't tell you if one or more than one entity was involved.

It doesn't tell you what you're supposed to do.

It doesn't tell you which book to read.

It doesn't tell you which religion to belong to.

It doesn't tell you which prophet to follow.

By no means does it tell you that you should be a Christian.

Or a Hindu or Satanist or Muslim or Pagan.

In no way does it mean that any given document is the word of god.

In no way does it mean that evolution doesn't exist.

It tells you nothing.

You'd know just as much if someone said "Bubba did it".

Is that what you wanted to know?

"Bubba did it"?

And then after all is said and done it leaves you right back where you started because then you have to ask "Where did Bubba come from?"

Wasn't that the original question "Where did things come from?"

Why suddenly stop asking? Is stuff suddenly off limits?

It leaves you right back where you started.

It is an INTELLECTUALLY WORTHLESS ARGUMENT.

It is WORTHLESS.

You think it tells you something but it tells you NOTHING.

Except it is WORSE THAN WORTHLESS.

It is DISINCENTIVIZING. (Is there such a word???)

Because when you hear it you go away with the false feeling "Oh now I see what's going on it was created" and you think you understand when you really don't understand and you don't know any more than you did but thinking you do you end up disinclined to look further into the matter and you'll never gain any practical knowledge about anything and the net result is mankind goes nowhere.

Which is exactly where we're headed when you swallow stuff like creationism.

 

From experience in dealing with the fundies locally, here in the buckle of the bible belt. I'll say alot of people are just plain afraid to step outside the circle and take a real look at anything. The pressure put on them is put there from the time that they are born and it's ingrained into their being to be afraid of anything that deters from the brainwashing they've recieved. Although they might agree with you on the downlow they sure as hell won't back you up in a public setting. I've talked about it before, but I won over the school district on them posting biblical scripture on one of their websites that involved a Q&A type thing .... i.e : How do you find strength to succeed? Look to Jesus followed by some biblical scripture and it went on and on. I raised hell about it and they ended up scrapping every last site and redoing them all. I was alone in that because although there were people who agreed with me, they weren't about to stand up and say so publicly. Preachers preached against me in their parishes, people still shun me in public. I don't give a damn. But you put forth something very important in how do we stop preaching to the choir so to speak and initiate some real change? Most of them do not follow any logic or accept any argument except what they've been taught from day one. So you can't even engage them to begin with. Individually it's possible as I've experienced but once they are back in the collective group, it's over. It just takes more people with clear minds to stand up and be counted.

I'm about to engage the school system once more as another thread that I started indicates. Some would say it's silly, petty even, but where does it stop? If noone stands up when it's small, then who will be there when it grows beyond our say?

 

SDS I have long had an affinity with the grassroots movement. There are many issues on which we agree. There is a great need for reform. But where most grassroots proponents and I disagree is on how and why. I see your position as one of arrogance and ignorance. You say that we should not be bringing about change through political means. Have you any idea of the implications of such an idea? Violence. That is your answer. If you will not pursue change through political means, you seek them through violent means. Have you not read the insane stories that came out of the French Revolution? Women being strung up on trees by ankles spread as far apart as they will stretch and then cut in half from toe to head. Men and children murdered, women brutalized and raped. It was one of the most disgusting things that mankind has ever done. Why did it happen? Because the grassroots movement needed a change. Innocent people died because an evil system and their leaders indoctrinated them. The reasoning seems eerily and disturbingly similar to your claims about the religious people in your country. Those indoctrinated fools would surely resist your grassroots movement. I would and I am an atheist. Would you slaughter us like Robespierre slaughtered innocent men and women in France? You would have to. You have no other means, political and philosophical means ought to be tossed out of the window.

Hell, even the leader of the Reign of Terror in France understood that philosophical means were necessary in his fight for change. He slept with a copy of The Social Contract at his side. Without Rousseau there would be no revolution. Are you sleeping with Leviathan or Second Treatise?

This is where the arrogance and ignorance of your movement and posts shows itself most. Ignorance in disregarding the product of the greatest minds that have ever lived. Arrogance in assuming that your mind is on that level. You have made not a single mention of Social Contract Theory. You have made no argument for the justification of the inevitable use of violence. Do you know that the answers are those philosophical texts? You are going to inevitably run into someone that has read those texts and who does not agree with what you are trying to do. How are you going to convince them that they should be joining the grassroots movement? By spouting that impassioned but incredibly ridiculous critique of the teleological argument? Sadly, the answer seems to be yes. That is one of your “intellectual tools”. I’ll get to that later.

You want to fight against the evil Christians but you don’t respect them. There is much in the way of legitimate justification for their position. As I mentioned, the best minds have been thinking about the problem of religion for two thousand years. They have come up with some pretty solid arguments for belief. You’ve got to learn those and understand those before you tell us why they are wrong. I fail to think you have learned or understood those problems as is evident in your response to the teleological argument.

The argument from design is not known in intellectual circles as such. It is known as the teleological argument. It was mentioned in Plato, in the Bible, in Cicero, but the best “argument from design” came from William Paley. Ever heard of him?

He was the guy who came up with the watch analogy.

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given – that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other; viz., that, when we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted together as to produce motion, and that motion is so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. ... This mechanism being observed, (it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood,) the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, and artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.” (William Paley, Natural Theology.

There is the problem this a posteriori inductive argument sets out to solve. You have set out the argument as follows:

I think it is hardly fair to chastise an argument while offering the least possible amount of respect to it. So I shall outline the argument in a way that does it justice.

1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design (purpose).
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore, the universe is (probably) a product of intelligent design (purpose).
4. But the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact.
5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who designed the universe.

Keep in mind that this is an inductive and a posteriori argument for the existence of a designer. That means that the conclusion is likely to follow if the premises are true. If you want to show all those Christian automatons that this argument is false and that the ideas they believe in have no substance you must either show that the conclusion does not likely follow from the premises or that the premises are false.

You have done neither.
Your objection to the argument runs as follows:

That is laughable at best. I am sorry but this was not worth reading and, should it be adopted as a tool/weapon, would inevitably and certainly lead one to death. It is like bringing a feather as a weapon against a sword. You say it explains nothing. It explains that there is likely a designer to designed things and that the artifacts of the world resemble human artifacts. You say it provided no useful information, but the greatest philosophers have seen enough worth in the conclusion to dedicate volumes and volumes of objection and affirmation. In a sense it does leave you right back where you started. If the argument is true, there exists an intelligent designer. That intelligent designer would have been there previous to the argument. The difference is that this argument would have provided a way to know the existence of such a designer. That is pretty useful information, don’t you think.

You have not provided an objection. You must in order that people can have something intelligent upon which to base their opinion. It sounds to me like you are asking people to base their lives on your personal biases. There are leaders in society that ask people to do the same thing. They are called dictators.

Alright, der SDS, let us move on to this:

Ignorance and arrogance. If you understood the argument at all (which I have previously accused you of failing to do) you would understand that the argument does not mean to tell you any of those things. It doesn’t mean to tell you where the thing was made, it doesn’t mean to tell you how something works, it doesn’t mean to tell you how to make one. It doesn’t mean to tell you who made it, nor why. It doesn’t mean to tell you to be a Christian or a Buddhist. It means not to tell you anything but the first thing you mentioned. That it is likely, given the evidence of complex worldly artifacts that a worldly designer exists. That is it. Someone who understood the argument wouldn’t look for more than is there. Only a fool would take more than is presented.
So to all people who look for the tool that SDS has failed miserably to provide, I suggest reading David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. You must turn to Philosophy to find your answers.

Without it the grassroots movement is dead. There has been no progression because people like SDS do not see the merit in respecting the product of 2000 years of thought, nor the merit in reading the actual objections to the solid arguments the evil Christians have thought up.

The answers are all out there. There is justification for the economical use of violence, there are political structures outlined in countless texts which shed some light on where things have gone wrong.

It is only arrogance and ignorance that makes it possible for people to say “turn away from philosophy and politics”.

Fortunately people like SDS will never amount to anything like Robespierre. The world is a better place when the arrogant and ignorant can’t rule by the whim of their bias.

Don’t worry SDS, you have only fallen into the abyss of nihilism. Unfortunately it is the American one. The American abyss makes it so that you don’t even know you are in an abyss. How pleasant that must be.

What say you?

 

OSF I appreciate the time and effort you put forth in your reply.


However your criticism of my argument against the argument from design fails to salvage the latter and misses key points which anyone can easily understand.

To get right to the heart of the matter here is how you present the argument ("In a way that does it justice"):

1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design (purpose).
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore, the universe is (probably) a product of intelligent design (purpose).
4. But the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact.
5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who designed the universe.

And then you say:

"If you want to show all those Christian automatons that this argument is false and that the ideas they believe in have no substance you must either show that the conclusion does not likely follow from the premises or that the premises are false."

"You have done neither."

Actually you yourself reveal that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises in use of the words "probably" and "likely". "Probably" is not good enough. "Probably" is not "Is" or "Is Not". We're right back where we started. We're right back to the original question.

But in fact it is not correct that one has to show that the premises are false or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises to disprove the argument.

There is a third line of attack. A third line of attack that raises a devastating issue.

The third line of attack is that the conclusion is worthless. The conclusion provides no useful knowledge. It accomplishes nothing. It consists of words and seems to say something but it really doesn't. By saying "It was created" one fundamentally knows nothing more than when one started. This is proven by the fact that it immediately raises the question "Who created the creator?" To just say "there was a creator" gets you nowhere. Again we're right back where we started. This is simple and easy to understand.

"Bubba created the universe" Big deal. It tells me nothing. And where did Bubba come from? Or am I not supposed to ask? Who's the arrogant one here?

Ignorance, violence and arrogance OSF I support and promote none of these.

 

element7 you're right on the money I do want to get back to you later.

 

The teleological argument is an inductive argument

What more can I say about it? You claim not to be ignorant, it is certainly the case that someone learned in logic would know what an inductive argument does and does not do (and what it does and does not mean to do).

Knowing that the teleological argument is inductive, why do you demand more from the conclusion it draws? I can’t wrap my head around it. Perhaps you could enlighten me. I assure you it is not contained anywhere in this thread. So don’t bother paraphrasing what you have already said.

I’ll leave you and your dictionary alone now.

(Did you go research inductive arguments yet? Good.)

On to the usefulness of the conclusion.

Assuming that this conclusion is true, that it is likely that there is a purposeful creator of the world, we can not say that we have learned nothing more than we knew.

Quantitatively speaking, ie. the amount of proof that pointed to the likely existence of a purposeful designer without consideration of the specific premises of the argument in consideration, we do know more than we did before we started. Before the argument, we did not know that there was design, we did not know that there was a parallel between things in the natural made and man made things in terms of the probable purpose.

I feel silly typing this, but remember that I said ‘before the premises of the argument were considered’. Do not confuse this with meaning ‘before this specific formation of the argument’. On top of being inductive, this argument is a posteriori (if you need to look this one up as well please do so now). So you see that the premises of the argument come from our experience of the world, it is possible (indeed quite likely) that the premises are considered independently of the formal argument.

It is just wrong to say that we learn nothing and that the conclusion is useless. Remember that this argument can be seen in Plato. Before Christ was born! You’d think that it would have already been dismissed if it were useless and told us absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately this is a case (as there are many in life) in which your opinion on the matter doesn’t matter. It has been around for a long time, studied by many of the best thinkers and is still here because it is legit.

I don’t really want to keep on this path. Let us discuss how to respond to the argument correctly. Once we comprehend what the argument is saying we come to realize that it is perfectly in tune with what evolution has taught us. Things began as simple and evolved to the complex. In this sense the designer that is proposed by the argument can be named the evolutionary process, indeed chaos. There is little standing in the way of supposing the purpose to be existence and adaptation.

Thanks in large part to Darwin, it would seem a large jump to assume that there is some god-like figure. With knowledge of chaos, evolution ie. mutation and adaptation, and billions of years there is much in the way of evidence pointing to the real purpose of the design: survival.

What say you?

 

The argument is inductive insofar as it is of the form "everything has a cause and everything in the past has had a cause therefore the universe as it is must have a cause." The argument posits a creator as that cause. But then one is inductively obliged to say "everything has a cause therefore the creator has a cause" and we are right back where we started. Nothing is accomplished.

But in fact the argument is simultaneously anti-inductive. It says everything has a cause then when it gets to the creator it all of a sudden says "Oh this doesn't have any cause." This abrupt turning of the tables is completely unsupported from the inductive standpoint.

To say that there is a creator explains nothing. It provides no usable information. It is a worthless argument. It provides no useful knowledge. One knows nothing more than one did. One can't do anything with it.

It's like asking "What is the cause of this effect?" and getting the answer "The effect had a cause". This gets one nowhere. It says nothing.

Or it's like asking "What is the answer to this question?" and being told "There is an answer to the question." This accomplishes nothing. Furthermore the claim that there is an answer could be wrong. In fact one cannot be sure there really is an answer to the question until one gets a real answer.

And on a more practical everyday level in no way does the argument "get us to religion" or any particular incarnation of religion. It gets us nowhere.

OSF let me say something. Maybe something a little surprising. We could find some common ground. Well, not in the teleological argument. It gets one nowhere either philosophically or scientifically or religiously. But we do no doubt have common ground insofar as we all want or most all of us at least want the good and right things. Me a nihilist? No way. What is the value of religion? Let us assume it is to serve man and to serve god assuming he wants to be served. If religion has something to offer man and to offer god assuming he exists and wants to be served I'm all for it. That's not my problem. The problem rather is that religion as it currently exists and is practised is not getting us there. It's not taking us where we want to go. Not all of religion is bad but parts of it are bad. It's making things worse not better. It's being hurtful instead of helpful. We want the right and the good things but much of religion as it exists is not taking us there. One needs to separate the good parts from the bad parts. That's why there's work that needs to be done. That's why people need to be educated about ideas and concepts that don't work and that are harmful not helpful.

 

This thread is not really intended to be about religion. It's intended to be about organization or an organized effort. Element 7 you hit the nail on the head when you ask "How do we stop preaching to the choir and initiate some real change?" You see the importance of this issue.

There is this enormous counterproductive movement out there seizing more and more unsuspecting minds and it is completely unopposed...

Well our work is certainly cut out for us. You know I'm interested in the SDS and since at least some people at this website are interested in the 60s or at least the culture that evolved in the 60s let me bring in an historical SDS perpective that has relevance to the surrent situation.

Marxism which I know practically nothing about as I understand it always taught that the workers would be the "vanguard" or primary force to bring about revolution.

But the early members of the SDS had a different idea. They evolved or adopted the idea that the major evolutionary changes in society were going to arise not from the labor force but from STUDENTS and from centers of learning. And in fact in the 60s for a number of years it looked exactly like this was what was happening.

But then the bad news. Look at today. Where do we stand now? The word is that one of the major theaters for attack by conservatives in these next years is going to be specifically ACADEMIC CENTERS AND UNIVERSITIES. You see it already in agents like Cliffe Knechtle on campus the proof is in the pudding...

An oppostional educational effort really needs to be organized. Not only on mainstreet in every hometown grass roots USA but now there's a showdown looming at campuses and schools and those who don't want to see this country go the way of theocracy better be prepared to act. And rather like the vision of the SDS in the 60s it makes some sense that this educational effort should be spearheaded by young people and students who possess the clearness of vision openness of mind and mental dexterity to undertand the truth.

 

Unfortunately the academic centers are under attack from more than theocracy and the interests of big govt. They're also resembling more and more just giant corporate waiting rooms. Alot of students could care less about anything that doesn't fall within their degree plan. If it won't help their gpa, then they don't need it. Sad, sad, sad.

 

Well no.

You are missing the point of the argument completely.

I’ve studied philosophy (and of course the “Big Three”) for a long time now. And I have yet to come across any version of the teleological whatsoever that means or attempts to posit the cause of the creator.

Again, and for the final time, you are trying to make the argument something that it is not.

You can go ahead and tell me, again, that all those questions you are asking, like what cause is there of the creator, are not answered by the teleological argument and I will only be able to respond with the answer that ...

The inductive argument (and because you have yet to grasp the meaning of an inductive argument I will go ahead and tell you that an inductive argument means to show that the conclusion is ‘probable’ or ‘likely follows’ from the truth of the premises) to design ‘only’ posits that if there appears to be design in natural things like there are in human things then it likely follows that there was a purposeful designer behind those things.

Talk of a “creator” and of the “cause of the creator” are for another argument.

It might fly on a website where there are no serious intellects because no one knows better, but as soon as you say what you have written, and deny thinkers like Paley and Swinburne, even Hume himself, their intelligence, to anyone who knows a thing or two about theological arguments and logic, you will get laughed at. Since we are on the same page on some level you should take these words for their worth ... get over that arrogance. It is unbecoming a political actor.

Anti-inductive? What the hell does that mean? Do you mean to say deductive? Why didn’t you just write the word deductive? Hell, even deductive isn’t anti-inductive. Something that is anti-inductive would have to (right now I am playing silly games because there exists no such thing as an anti-inductive argument in the field) posit that the premises do not mean to lead to a conclusion that is likely to follow from them.

In simpler terms, as it seems those are the only ones you are prepared to comprehend, “What the fuck are you talking about?”

The inductive argument does not posit a “creator”, only a purposeful designer. Remember when you called it the argument from design? Why the heck do you think they call it the argument from design and not the argument from creation?

There is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, in the teleological argument that says anything close to “Oh this doesn’t have a cause”. That is another argument, one that you are making up. Stop making stuff up amateur! It is becoming blatantly obvious that you really have no knowledge of the argument whatsoever! How else can I explain the absurd, borderline idiotic, inferences you are making? Though if it is good for nothing then it is good for a laugh.

Perhaps stand-up comedy would be a better path for you than would be motivating students to give up the idiocy of the teachings of the moronic Christians.

I have to wonder what justification you have in saying that the Christians are wrong without showing the other two, of the big three, wrong.

What you just said there is that the knowledge that there is a creator of the world, the elimination of the notion that this all happened because of random chance, provides no knowledge. What you have done is posit with one sentence the elimination of a legitimate possibility for the origins of the universe with a positive assertion of another, and then told me that you have offered me no useful knowledge!!!

You moron! That was the single most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone claiming to be a soldier of the good say!

The worst part is that you have convinced yourself that you are right. Wake up child! Go read Hume, please please go read Hume. For the sake of all things good, go read Hume.

What of one whom invokes the holy trinity of theological proofs? The teleological and the cosmological and the ontological? To that person, your ignorant ramblings about the new (and I say new only because you seem to have created in your head an idea of the teleological argument that is unprecedented in the history of thought) teleological mean nothing because it is the weakest of the three.

Why did you decide to pick on the weakest of the three, by the way?

Those Christian fools still can fall back on the Cosmological argument (which, by the way, is the one that deals with the cause of the creator) and the Ontological argument, which is one of the most remarkable argument ever made.

One of the most brilliant men ever said this about the ontological argument:
“ I remember the precise moment, one day in 1894, as I was walking along Trinity Lane [at Cambridge University] when I saw in a flash (or thought I saw) that the ontological argument is valid. I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco; on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the air, and exclaimed as I caught it: 'Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound!'". (Ripped from his autobiography)

Russell was one of the greatest agnostic philosophers, and of course you know this, that ever lived.

I’d think that if you were serious about what you were doing you would have dismissed those two with the same ease that you have dismissed their weaker brethren.

What say you of them?

I know this isn’t a discussion about religion, but to prove yourself worthy I think it necessary of you to respect the enemy you wish to decimate by tackling the strongest of its arguments.

We, by that I mean you and I specifically, can not find a common ground. You just don’t understand things. Forgive me for saying, I understand that we strive for something similar, but we are worlds apart on everything from respect due to enemies past, to the role of philosophy and striving for truth, to the banality of evil in religious life.

Great! And I am quite serious here, for maybe now is when I learn from you. By what, if not religion or God, do you validate the notion that you are a value seeker instead of a value creator? If you aren’t a nihilist, (which I find hard to believe because those philosophical giants with who you share goals all were) how do you account for value (and of course you subscribe to some value or another, as you are here trying to get people to smarten up)?

What are your thoughts on that unholy trinity (from which you derive most of your opinions, even if you don’t know it yet. Not a bad thing, but a great place to find the value you might have to go look for) of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau?

Will you agree or deny the idea that, as Locke posited in the Second Treatise, civil society is distinct of the state of nature? And how would you respond to the accusation, from Bloom of course, that civil society does not save man from the state of nature?

Certainly you have thought of such things if you are advocating “students for democratic society”. You better have an uncanny understanding of the principles of the democratic state if you are advocating such a state.

Not only ought you have an uncanny understanding of the musings of the godfathers of democracy, but you also ought have uncanny arguments for states other than democracy.

How do you reconcile the idea, that a democratic system will always lead to fewer opportunities for checks on the state than will a monarchical system, with your defense and advocating of such a system?

When Montesquieu asserted that a democratic state must cultivate law loving citizens, and a monarchy must cultivate honorable citizens, do you respond with a love of the law? It is hard to see how you reconcile your own position (for the SDS of the sixties) knowing that those individuals, offering a counter culture, were closer to the honorable citizens of a monarchy then the law loving citizens of the republic (of which there are democratic and aristocratic).

How do you answer such a challenge?

If God exists you are all for religion.

Me too. Maybe you aren’t as lost as I might be inclined to think you are. Such assertions, that if God exists you will follow, lead me to believe that you are insecure in your knowledge that God does not exist.

Even though someone like Russell might assert the soundness of the deduction from cosmology there are ways around such arguments. Don’t doubt it. Funny, though, that Chesterton (one of the greatest Christian apologists ever, certainly you have read Orthodoxy) asserted that at one point even God Himself was of doubt. Maybe you are closer to being religious than you know!

How exactly, apart from criticizing the weak inductive argument of the big three, is religion making things worse? I want exactness here. Give me the best you have.

Give me the best argument, against the worthiness of Christianity to current society, that you have. Include a better solution and why it is so.

What say you?

 

OSF one has a phenomenon, the universe, and one wants to know something about its cause. One inductively assumes there is a cause because everything else has a cause.

But this inductive conclusion could be wrong. The universe may not have a cause. It may have always existed.

By analogy, every material entity exists in space. The universe is a material entity. Inductively one would conclude that the universe probably exists in space. But this conclusion is probably incorrect.

Even if the universe does have a cause, one does not know what the cause is.

Even if the universe does have a cause, one does not know what the cause of the cause is.

If on the basis of induction one asserts that there is probably a cause of the universe, then there is probably a cause of the cause. If one suddenly asserts that there is no cause of the cause, as in the case of an ultimate creator, one is no longer being inductive. One has suddenly become anti-inductive. And one again is faced with an unexplained phenomenon or entity. One is right back where one started.

I have not eliminated a possibility as to the cause of the universe. I have simply said that the the argument in question provides no information either about whether such a cause exists or what the nature of that cause is.

It is possible for example that satan created the universe.

It's an empty argument that gets nowhere. In answer to the question "What is the cause of this phenomenon" it answers "There is probably a cause of this phenomenon." And yet even that much is not certain. There may not be one. One does not know any more than one did.

I'll respond to your other issues when I have an opportunity.

 

How mistaken can one person be?

Quite, it seems.

In your ramblings about a cause of the cause you have forgotten one thing. The teleological deals specifically with the argument from design.

The cosmological argument deals specifically with the problem of infinite regress.

You are attacking an argument by asserting that it does not deal with a question that is dealt with by another argument.

Please, if we are going to be speaking of the teleological argument, let us only speak of the teleological argument.
You make yourself look more foolish when you insist that the teleological argument is dealing with the problem of the cosmological argument.

STOP DOING IT!!

The teleological argument deals specifically with the notion of intelligent design. It has absolutely nothing to do with who created the universe or what created that creator.

If you are going to keep nagging us about a first cause, address the first cause argument! The teleological argument doesn’t deal with that!

 

OSF there is only one proposition and one issue.

The proposition is god as an explanation.

One can cite as many aspects about the proposition as one wishes. Cosmololgcal ontological teleological moral ad infinitum. Because the proposition can be used to explain anything.

And there is only one issue.

The issue is the informational content of the proposition.

The fact is there is no substantive informational content to the proposition "god".

The proposition explains nothing. It is a proxy for an explanation.

In answer to the question "What is the answer to this question?" it says "There is an answer to this question." But that answers no question.

Then it says "The answer is the same to all other questions."

Lastly it says "The answer is final and there is nothing else you need to ask or know in answer to the question."

This tells one nothing. This gets one nowhere. It's basically saying "Don't ask."

The informational content of the proposition in terms of any question is zero.

To be told that there is an answer to a question is not the same as knowing the answer to that quesiton.

To be told that someone else knows the answer to a question is not the same as knowing the answer to that question.

To give a name -- "god" -- to the answer of a question is not the same as having that answer.

That there is a name does not even mean there is anything behind the name.

From the standpoint of useful information for Students for an Educational Society everyone simply needs to know that the proposition "god" tells one nothing. It explains nothing. It provides no useful information. One knows nothing more than what one knew before. It does not tell one how to accomplish any ends. It does not tell one what to do except to stop there. It yields no understanding and nothing of practical value. It is devoid of informational content. It is without substance. It's the illusion of an answer. One can do nothing with it.

With a proposition that explains everything and thus nothing it is a wonder that susceptibles bother knowing anything else at all. Indeed they are making diligent efforts to know less and less and to make sure others know as little.

Which is not the aim of SES.

 

What are you studying?