Shitlord Of The Week

[Philboid Studge]

Shitlord XXVI (felcher of the grand douchewizard and lord of the foul odour) has taken some time off from playing stinkfinger with himself to write this toilet-clogger: www.csmonitor.com/2007/1017/p09s06-coop.html

His thesis: that atheism "presumes" to know everything.

I've learned that Christstains:
1) are often immune to irony
2) take the piss out of epistemology

[Rhinoqulous]

It seems D'Souza is as ignorant of Kant as he charges atheists to be. While Kant was a deist, he was not religious by any means, and the nominal/phenomenal distinction has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with the limits of empiricism (think of it as a proto-Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Kant was also a critic of religion and Christianity in general. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Kant's Philosophy of Religion:

The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).

Shitlord should do his homework before spouting off philosophy he doesn't even begin to grasp.

[nkb]

I know jackshit about philosophy, and even I can smell the BS in his arguments.

First of all, he writes for the Christian Science Monitor. That should be enough to dismiss him outright.

Secondly, as Phil pointed out, atheists don't claim to know everything, and I'm not sure many of them claim that we will know everything eventually.

Thirdly, no matter what Kant may have said about our limits of perception (with which I agree), logically proving that there may be something out there is lightyears away from showing that it's God (or any of the other earthly religions).

It's the same fallacious strategy that ID proponents use: if evolution can't answer every question, then ID must have merit.

Shitlord 26 wrote

Consider a tape recorder. It captures only one mode of reality, namely sound. Thus all aspects of reality that cannot be captured in sound are beyond its reach. The same, Kant would argue, is true of human beings. The only way we apprehend empirical reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that this five-mode instrument is sufficient?

First of all, science has enabled us to perceive things that our 5 senses cannot. Last I checked, humans were unable to naturally perceive red shifts or ultra violet light. But thanks to some technologies that science has made possible, we can now.

What makes us think that there is no reality that lies beyond sensory perception?

I might be wrong, but I highly doubt that Hitchens, Dawkins or Dennett asserted that reality is only that which can be perceived by our senses.

Moreover, the reality we apprehend is not reality in itself. It is merely our experience or "take" on it. Kant's startling claim is that we have no basis for assuming that a material perception of reality ever resembles reality itself. I can tell if my daughter's drawing of her teacher looks like the teacher by placing the portrait alongside the person. With my eyes, I compare the copy with the original. Kant points out, however, that comparing our experience of reality to reality itself is impossible. We have representations only, never the originals. So we have no basis for presuming that the two are even comparable. When we equate experience and reality, we are making an unjustified leap.

It is essential to recognize that Kant isn't diminishing the importance of experience. It is entirely rational for us to use science and reason to discover the operating principles of the world of experience. This world, however, is not the only one there is. Kant contended that while science and reason apply to the world of sensory phenomena, of things as they are experienced by us, science and reason cannot penetrate what Kant termed the noumena – things as they are in themselves.

If we are limited in our knowledge about reality by our sensory capabilities, then on what basis can we posit the existence of these "things as they are in themselves" if we cannot in any way detect them?

Some critics have understood Kant to be denying the existence of external reality or of arguing that all of reality is "in the mind." Kant emphatically rejects this. He insists that the noumenon obviously exists because it is what gives rise to phenomena.

It obviously exists because it is what gives rise to phenomena? On what basis does he make this assertion?

In other words, our experience is an experience of something. Perhaps the best way to understand this is to see Kant as positing two kinds of reality: the material reality that we experience and reality itself. To many, the implication of Kant's argument is that reality as a whole is, in principle, inaccessible to human perception and human reason.

Setting up for a God of the gaps argument here......

Thus, when Christopher Hitchens and other atheists routinely dismiss religious claims on the grounds that "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," they are making what philosophers like to call a category mistake. We learn from Kant that within the domain of experience, human reason is sovereign, but it is in no way unreasonable to believe things on faith that simply cannot be adjudicated by reason.

Wait, so it is actually reasonable to believe things that cannot be "adjudicated by reason"? It's reasonable to believe unreasonable things....the key premise for all religions!

When atheists summarily dismiss such common ideas as the immortality of the soul or the afterlife on the grounds that they have never found any empirical proofs for either, they are asking for experiential evidence in a domain that is entirely beyond the reach of the senses. In this domain, Kant argues, the absence of such evidence cannot be used as the evidence for absence.

Ah yes....the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" response. Imagine how it would be if we used this kind of reasoning in murder trials. "Your honor, though we don't have any evidence that the defendent killed the victim, that's not evidence that he didn't do it!"

He admits that we haven't found any empirical proof for afterlives and immortal souls. Remind me again, what kind of proof have we found?

Notice that Kant's argument is entirely secular: It does not employ any religious vocabulary, nor does it rely on any kind of faith. But in showing the limits of reason, Kant's philosophy "opens the door to faith," as the philosopher himself noted.

And here we go....the God of the gaps argument: we cannot know everything about reality, therefore it is possible that God is a reality, therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists even though we don't have any evidence supporting that belief.

Kant exposes the ignorant boast of atheists that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. He shows that reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. Atheism foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while theism at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.

How can you know there is a reality, greater, and beyond, that which our sesnses and our minds can ever apprehend if those are the only tools available to know anything about reality?

[Philboid Studge]

nkb wrote

First of all, he writes for the Christian Science Monitor.

Actually, that paper doesn't chug as much cum as the name implies. (Though giving print space to Ganesh D'Shitelord suggests dubious editorial decision-making.)

I believe Distort D'Newza used to date Ann Couter. Speaking of whom, she had to have been elected Shitlady (or actually...maybe lord) at some point right? I know there's a page somewhere on this thread that chronicles the entire line of Shitlords but I can't be bothered to look for it.

[Philboid Studge]

Metman07 wrote

I know there's a page somewhere on this thread that chronicles the entire line of Shitlords but I can't be bothered to look for it.

The first post, which Choobus has updated as required.

[nkb]

Yeah, what's up with that? Coulter has never been crowned? Has she even been discussed?

nkb wrote

Yeah, what's up with that? Coulter has never been crowned? Has she even been discussed?

Certainly an ideal candidate, but our Mods don't seem to want to make any coronations.

[Rhinoqulous]

Metman wrote

It obviously exists because it is what gives rise to phenomena? On what basis does he make this assertion?

To be fair, this is more of Shitlord having a poor understanding of Kant than anything wrong with Kant's philosophy. Kant is very detailed in his critiques of Metaphysics and Epistemology.

[Professor Chaos]

Jeremy wrote

Certainly an ideal candidate, but our Mods don't seem to want to make any coronations.

Kind of forgot.
Kind of was hoping for more than two or three posts about McCain.

McCain it is for last week. Anyone want to do the honors of providing him his new ShitLord name?

[nkb]

While I have you here, Rhino, can you explain whether the Shitlord misunderstood/misrepresented Kant on this point, or if this is what Kant meant:

Shitlord wrote

Moreover, the reality we apprehend is not reality in itself. It is merely our experience or "take" on it. Kant's startling claim is that we have no basis for assuming that a material perception of reality ever resembles reality itself. I can tell if my daughter's drawing of her teacher looks like the teacher by placing the portrait alongside the person. With my eyes, I compare the copy with the original. Kant points out, however, that comparing our experience of reality to reality itself is impossible. We have representations only, never the originals. So we have no basis for presuming that the two are even comparable. When we equate experience and reality, we are making an unjustified leap.

This example makes no sense. Both the teacher and the picture are seen through the same method, so why can't you state that the picture looks like the teacher? They may both be inaccurate from another point of view, but they reseble each other.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, because I have visions of my head hurting from trying to parse philosophy.

Professor Chaos wrote

Kind of forgot.
Kind of was hoping for more than two or three posts about McCain.

McCain it is for last week. Anyone want to do the honors of providing him his new ShitLord name?

John McCain, Shitlord XXIX (Presidential Pants Dropper for Shit Insertion)

[nkb]

Philboid Studge wrote

Actually, that paper doesn't chug as much cum as the name implies. (Though giving print space to Ganesh D'Shitelord suggests dubious editorial decision-making.)

But, this is an official site of Christian Scientists, the people who believe praying over any medical condition (including broken bones) is the only way to heal people, isn't it?

Are you saying that they are more reasonable when it comes to non-medical issues?

[Rhinoqulous]

nkb wrote

While I have you here, Rhino, can you explain whether the Shitlord misunderstood/misrepresented Kant on this point, or if this is what Kant meant:

It's Shitlord misunderstanding and using a bad example.

Shitlord wrote

Moreover, the reality we apprehend is not reality in itself. It is merely our experience or "take" on it. Kant's startling claim is that we have no basis for assuming that a material perception of reality ever resembles reality itself.

This is pretty much correct. Kant's nomenal/phenomenal distinction mostly deals with our a priori notions of space and time (i.e., how our brain works), which determine how we experience reality. The nominel realm is the base "substance" of reality, that is beyond our capability to experience (and also means the pursuit of "ontology" pointless). But Shitlord continues...

Shitlord wrote

I can tell if my daughter's drawing of her teacher looks like the teacher by placing the portrait alongside the person. With my eyes, I compare the copy with the original. Kant points out, however, that comparing our experience of reality to reality itself is impossible.

This is just fucking retarded. In comparing a drawing of the teacher to the teacher, you're comparing the phenomenal (your experience of the drawing) to the phenomenal (your experience of the teacher). You're making no impossible comparison.

Shitlord wrote

We have representations only, never the originals. So we have no basis for presuming that the two are even comparable. When we equate experience and reality, we are making an unjustified leap.

Kant isn't saying the phenomenal is not reality, but it is not all there is to reality. The nomenal is the "base" on which the phenomenal is built (caused/superviene/whatever). Drawing conclusions about the nomenal, such as it allows for the existence of God, is pointless as you can't form truth-functional propositions about the nomenal (this point could be argued, but that's a different matter). There's no problem in equating experience with reality, because your experience is part of reality.

This example makes no sense. Both the teacher and the picture are seen through the same method, so why can't you state that the picture looks like the teacher? They may both be inaccurate from another point of view, but they reseble each other.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, because I have visions of my head hurting from trying to parse philosophy.

No need to regret, your take on the Shitlords argument was pretty much spot-on.