klog

Great book, this. Philosophy, The Basics, by Nigel Warburton

A lot of problems are described very simply, without recourse to huge multisyllabic words like “multisyllabic”.

As an atheist, I enjoyed the discussions on the various proofs that there is indeed a god. No conclusions were given, other than that there is more discussion needed.

I’ve just finished reading up on ethics, and am only slightly disappointed to find that there are indeed no hard and fast rules for how to live your life (unless you are religious, in which case “good” means “what god says”). Some ethic theories (utilitarianism, virtue theory, Kantian ethics, etc) were discussed, along with some example problems and how they might be solved with the various systems.

Based on the above, I think I may follow something like “negative utilitarianism”, whereby the goal of any action is to minimise suffering.

Now that I think of it, that could even explain my vegetarianism - I don’t kill and eat cows, because it would cause the cows pain, and I don’t suffer by eating potatoes instead.

How that allows me to come to work in suede shoes, and leather trousers, is beyond me - but hell, I’m not a consistent person!

The book is aimed at people who don’t study philosophy in-depth, but want an overview of it. That aim has been achieved. Everything is explained clearly and concisely.

Of course, not everything is explained - after reading certain sections, I had some questions that were not answered, but the book supplies “further reading” lists at the end of each chapter.

I was reading through Slashdot’s article on the crumbling possibilities of space elevators, and came across an interesting quotation:

An infinite universe is no guarantee that everything will happen. There are many infinities. For example, there are an infinite number of numbers between three and four, but none of them are five.

That was interesting to me, as it kind of effects something I am interested in - abiogenesis; the idea that life can appear out of semi-random chemical interaction (i.e.; no God).

One of the most popular arguments against abiogenesis is:

The probability of a self-reproducing molecule appearing by chance is so small that it should be considered impossible.

My favourite argument against that is:

In an inifinite universe, every configuration of molecules is not only probable, but inevitable.

The slashdot quote appears to negate that, by saying that even in an infinite universe, there may be impossible configurations. This is correct, but doesn’t really affect my belief in abiogenesis - my justification can be saved by adding one single word:

In an inifinite universe, every possible configuration of molecules is not only probable, but inevitable.

i.e.; in the original quote, it is impossible to have a number 5 which appears between 3 and 4, even though there are an infinite numbers that do appear between 3 and 4. However, the opposite is true - every possible number which is greater than 3 and lesser than 4 is most definitely part of that infinite set of 3<n<4.

So, if there is a molecular configuration which supports life and is possible to replicate in this universe, then it is inevitable that it will appear at some time, given that the universe is infinite.

"Well, d’uh!", I think is the sentiment every non-american would like to express. I really can’t understand how this farce made it so far through the courts. Thank $deity (haha!) that this has been thrown out.
It seems that the only difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design is that in Creationism, the weirdos are willing to give the creative force a name, but in ID, they pretend that the creative force is unknown to them.
I really don’t understand what the problem is that Creationists have with evolution. After all, evolutionary theory does not say that there is no god, but rather that if humans were "created" by God, then evolution is evidently the tool that God used!
Kae Verens, registered atheist/agnostic #1664