Those Brights

By -
Watching an atheist attempting to do metaphysics is like watching someone who denies the existence of water attempting to swim.

Comments

  1. Anonymous3:25 PM

    Ok, whatever. If you continue to define theological and metaphysical concepts in a way that would leave any rank-and-file believer staring at you like a deer in headlights, then I guess you'll never understand why the "new atheists" have a chip on their shoulder about God and religion. Or worse yet, why they're right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah4:38 PM

    "If you continue to define theological and metaphysical concepts in a way that would leave any rank-and-file believer staring at you like a deer in headlights..."

    Do you have any idea how stupid this complaint is? It is though you critiqued Erdos's understanding of higher math by complaining that 7th-grade algebra students don't get what he is saying.

    "then I guess you'll never understand why the "new atheists" have a chip on their shoulder about God and religion."

    Oh, I understand fine. It is because they are massively ignorant and filled with self-love.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Avram11:03 PM

    "Do you have any idea how stupid this complaint is? It is though you critiqued Erdos's understanding of higher math by complaining that 7th-grade algebra students don't get what he is saying."

    But Gene, that is the same complaint you have of using praxeological definitions in economics.

    I agree it is a stupid one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah2:07 AM

    Avram:
    1) I have no objection to using praxeology in economics. I'm not sure what you mean by adding "definitions."
    2) If I did have such a complaint, which I don't, it would not be the same as what I am saying here anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Avram3:40 AM

    1) I am refering to our exchange in a different topic on this blog here:

    "But it stands to reason that if you use the broader definition of economic activity, and not the more narrow one, that in the end you will draw very different conclusions."

    Only if you mistake your definition for reality!

    Look, Avram, when someone says "The economy is in a recession" it would be foolish to reply, "No it isn't -- people are still economizing full time!"

    And when we talk about whether or not stimulus might work, that is the kind of situation at which we are looking. The praxeological definition is not the appropriate definition to use in the case of a downturn, because the very concept of "downturn" is meaningless under that definition."

    2) Correct. I misunderstood "rank and file believer" in Watoosh's original reply to be "rank and file non-believer." The way it actually is, the situation is not equivalent. Apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah5:54 AM

    OK, Avram, there I was talking about *a* particular definition being inappropriate for *a* particular situation. It was no general objection to using praxeology.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more