Translate

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Another update and My Contempt for Paulomycin

The meta-ethics paper will be out by Sunday night. All the content is written already and now I'm just formatting the references, proofreading, and thinking things over. I normally like to give myself 2 days between when I think my final draft is done and when I actually post so that I can reflect as needed.

Anyway, I just wanted to post something that reflects my loathing for a certain presuppositional apologist I encountered. If I ever meet him on the web again, I will be sure to heap healthy quantities of disdain upon his smug, contemptuous, ignorant...thing. If you don't want to hear a pointless, angry rant, then please do not read the rest of this post. However, if you want to see what I'm like when I get pissed, continue on. So here's the rant; better I present it here than defile my paper with it.



An aside for Paulomycin: No Paulomycin, this is not an ad hominem; I’m not arguing your position is wrong because you’re ignorant. I'm noting that you’re ignorant of most contemporary philosophy and drawing the conclusion that…you’re ignorant. That'd be fine if: 1) you weren't so smug and condescending, and 2) you didn't assert obviously false claims (see below) as if your atheist critic would not be smart enough to fact-check you or already have the knowledge necessary to know your claim was BS. Feel free to use that obscenity as your excuse to ignore the arguments in my later post on moral arguments for God {though I certainly don’t use your infantile manner as an excuse not to address those equivocation-riddled things you call “arguments”}. The core problem you seem to have, Paulomycin, is that you assume if you don’t know something, the atheist you are speaking with doesn’t know it either. This is silly. I've read a fair bit of the moral psychology literature, unlike you (see below). Metaethics, philosophy of biology, and moral psychology were some of my main philosophical interests in undergrad. So unlike your lazy self, I actually read up on them instead of making empty proclamations based on presuppositional apologetics [atheism leads to moral nihilism! atheist moral realists beg the question, while theistic presuppositionalists do not! etc.] in the hopes that I would never run across an atheist who had actually done the reading. And I've read also Hume, so I know what the "is/ought" divide is. And unlike you, I actually understand why it poses no problem for either atheistic or theistic moral realism, including it's consequentialist forms. So when you BUTCHERED Hume’s is/ought distinction in front of me, you were not educating me: you were simply displaying your ignorance. So I look forward to more of these wonderful, paraphrased gems from you:

There is no evidence of a moral faculty. You made that up Noct 
(somewhere in the world, Dwyer and Sinnott-Armstrong are weeping…or laughing).

Stop name-dropping Noct. And that evidence amounts to subjective opinion 
(after I explained the work of Greene, Stich, Haidt, and Nichols to him in layman’s terms; reading comprehension, anyone? Paulomycin calls it "name-dropping" whenever you cite a reference so that your audience can easily fact-check your assertions. Of course, he doesn't apply this to himself when he quotes Descartes but...since when has intellectually honesty ever been a pre-requisite for presuppositional apologetics)

Noct hasn’t read anything by Descartes other thanMeditations…” 
(my library says otherwise. I suggest you read something besides Descartes and presuppositional apologetics. And note the sublime irony of this statement in light of his previous comments regarding the moral faculty.)

Descartes argued in a circle, a Cartesian circle, but that does not invalidate his position
(AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA).

Philosophy since Hume has been in shambles 
(How would you know, given how little of it you’ve read? And don’t insult people who did the reading, put in the work, and avoided equivocation fallacies, especially Wittgenstein, Kripke, Dennett, Fodor, Joyce, and Damasio).

Scientific beliefs are based on probabilistic induction. Thus they do not count as knowledge. So no Noct, fallibilism about knowledge is incoherent and scientific beliefs do nothing to rebut this 
[see section IV-D-3c-i of my upcoming post for context on what Paulomycin is “asserting” here (why should we respect his subjective will?)] (so we do not know HIV causes AIDS or that we had breakfast this morning simply because we are not 100% certain? What foolishness is this?! Sometimes I have trouble taking internet presuppositionalists seriously: most will say anything [including adopting infallibilism about knowledge, a position which contemporary epistemologists have rebutted with sound arguments] to invalidate atheism and defend God's existence. They don't seem to realize that global skepticism would undermine theistic knowledge. That's the whole point of global skepticism. Descartes got around the problem by positing an ad hoc + contrived account of "clear + distinct" perception; that or he blatantly argued in a circle {though Paulomycin apparently has no problem with since it's a "Cartesian" circle, i.e a "circle made by Descatres;" or Paulomycin is an inconsistent/dishonest reasoner and thus does not apply the same skeptical standards he does to theistic beleif as he does to other beliefs. Special pleading at its finest!}. Paulomycin  really is just a bottom-of-the-barrel example).

Ha! That’s evolution-of-the-gaps reasoning. There’s no evidence for how the mammalian strategy of having a lower number of offspring but investing a heavy amount of time rearing them evolved
(*cough* therapsids *cough* evidence of the same strategy developing in bird lineages and amongst some dinosaurs *cough* subtle modifications of the already present strategy, evident in pre-mammalian lineages and still present in many modern reptiles + insects + fish + …, of having numerous offspring that needed no parental time investment *cough*; I wonder who fell asleep during their Eco + Evo class 
[ironically, it was my discussion of the evolution of the mammalian strategy that got me banned from shockofgod’s chatroom, the place where Paulomycin hides to avoid the philosophically well-read atheists that could rip his equivocation-riddled “arguments” to shreds in a matter of seconds]).

Go forth Paulomycin! May you continue to annoy and strike pity in all intelligent people wherever you go.


[Yes this was immature. But I'm 21 and in a few years I won't be able to use my age as an excuse for this kind of behavior. So better to exploit my opportunites now. Get what I'm saying? And Paulomycin had it coming. He can hide his ignorance behind as much lofty language as he wants, but when it comes to meta-ethics or anything relating to contemporary philosophy...I know high school students who know more about it then he does, and middle-school students who can reason without employing as many equivocations as he does. He's fortunate I got banned from the chatroom right after he made that comment regarding the mammalian strategy; otherwise I would have been happy to reveal more of his ignorance to the room.]