From the Mailbag

[Dardedar]

Normally I would remove his name but he is interested in promotion of this book, which includes his name of course.

You ought to be interested in my little 1900-word moralist tract and primer _The Uncivil War_ which I webbed in 2003 at

http://www.johnkennard.com/Tuw/Tuwtp.html

and which rejects more peripheral approaches to morality, moral philosophy, ethics or meta-ethics, focusing instead on morality itself, and the implications of the reality of morality, both moral necessities, those things which must be in order for morality to be, and moral consequences, those things which must be since morality is, all in the hardly metaphorical context of the war against responsibility and more.

One can hardly have a more rigorous or normative moral theory, or one which arises more naturally and logically from the subject itself, and indeed little of it is original, although seldom have all the principles involved been so systematically and concisely gathered in one place (and some of it, as far as I can tell, is original).

It took nineteen years to write, and at one point ran over eleven thousand words, but was honed to the maximum I could achieve.

It can be regarded too as a work of moral(ist) fundamentalism: Why should the theocrats have all the fun, eh?

(Free downloads are also provided, both the zipped Web-pages and a PDF.)

Enjoy.

John Kennard

DAR
I went to the link and read some of it. I made it to page 17, each page just being a little paragraph. It's like there is a goal to see the maximum number of non sequiturs that can be strung together. If there was a prize for such a thing, surely this would win. Maybe John will stop by. It feels like an inappropriate imposition to provide this criticism when simply posting a blurb for him, but unless I am very mistaken, this isn't a close call. The claims of the booklet really are astonishing in that timeless moral questions, are answered with apparent logical certainty, based upon nothing but breathtaking non sequiturs.

In fact, I think it's gibberish. If it is gibberish, is it wrong to say so? Am I being impolite Doug?

D.

[Doug]

In fact, I think it's gibberish. If it is gibberish, is it wrong to say so? Am I being impolite Doug?

DOUG
I am reminded of Voltaire: ''When the masses undertake to reason, all is lost."

The text has scores of aphoristic stuff, such as:

Morality is real, and therefore responsibility
is real.
But how could responsibility be real if
there was no choice?
There would be no responsibility and
therefore no morality if there was no
choice, but morality and responsibility are
real, and so choice must be real, also.

I didn't read the whole thing, but it seems that if one is going to respond to the issue of whether morality is "real," one should define what is "real," and then show that morality satisfies that criteria. I didn't see any attempt to do any of this.

Gibberish is one way to look at it. Another way: This could be a New Age bestseller!

[Dardedar]

More mailbag:

****
-- On Wed, 5/6/09, v... wrote:

> From: v...>
> Subject: library
> To: fayfreethinkers@yahoo.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 10:08 PM
> Doug, Darrell and all, Is there a freethinker library from
> which one can borrow books?

DAR
We have a couple books we bring to meetings. Our loaning program is not very organized.


> I have an online debate going
> with an old (Christian) friend and he is urging me to read
> Strobels "A Case for Creationism".

DAR
I think you mean "A Case for a Creator." I can't find any reference to a book by Strobel titled "A Case for Creationism."

You can find a thorough rebuttal to his "The Case for Faith" here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... robel.html

You can find a thorough rebuttal to his "The Case for Christ" here:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/StrobelIntro.htm

Everything this clown has written has been roasted to a crisp by knowledgeable people who take the time to investigate his claims. No need to read the junk yourself, unless you want to. It's really bad, and dishonest.


> I told him I
> would if he would read Dawkins' "The God
> Delusion". I am reluctant to use the public library in
> case I ever apply for the position of Cheif Skeptic and Rush
> Limbaugh pulls up my library records. One of these days
> I'll make it to a meeting. V...

DAR
If you tell me where the online exchange is occurring I'll drop by and chime in. You can also invite him to post comments in our forum here:

LINK

If you want some help on some specific claims he makes you can post them there and freethinkers will jump in to help you too. Or you can send them to me.

Hope this helps and hope to see you at a meeting some time.

regards,

Darrel

[tmiller51]

DAR
We have a couple books we bring to meetings. Our loaning program is not very organized.

That reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask; has the Fayetteville Freethinkers group ever bought or considered buying freethinking books or magazine subscriptions for the Fay. public library? I was in a computer club ages ago and we bought the library a computer magazine subscription.

I'm not sure they'd allow it anymore, I could imagine loads of unwanted religious magazine subscriptions.

Their selection of religion skepticism books is pretty small.

Tim

[Dardedar]

has the Fayetteville Freethinkers group ever bought or considered buying freethinking books or magazine subscriptions for the Fay. public library?

DAR
That's a good question and the answer is no. We probably should. If the library is pretty well to do, and I think this one is, they will often buy books if they are simply requested. I know a lady, who at least years ago here in Fayetteville, would do this instead of buying books. She would request the library get them, and they would, and then the library calls you when it comes in! Pretty good system eh? So it may be just the case that we need to get off of our DUFFS and SIMPLY make the request for more skeptical/rational books.

If not, we should consider offering to raise some money to donate some of these materials. IF they accept such a thing (they may not).

D.

[Savonarola]

That's a good question and the answer is no. We probably should. If the library is pretty well to do, and I think this one is, they will often buy books if they are simply requested. I know a lady, who at least years ago here in Fayetteville, would do this instead of buying books. She would request the library get them, and they would, and then the library calls you when it comes in! Pretty good system eh? So it may be just the case that we need to get off of our DUFFS and SIMPLY make the request for more skeptical/rational books.

Books at FPL are often ordered in rounds, every [insert random and unpredictable period of time here], so such a request will probably get filled, but not necessarily in a reasonable time.

If not, we should consider offering to raise some money to donate some of these materials. IF they accept such a thing (they may not).

At FPL, they look for any excuse to get rid of a book that doesn't make the administration giddy. I wouldn't trust them with a donation of a book that's not mainstream idiocy.

[Doug]

So it may be just the case that we need to get off of our DUFFS and SIMPLY make the request for more skeptical/rational books.

DOUG
I did that for the Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. They got it in and called me to let me know. So it does work.

[JDKatFFTC]

I am reminded of Voltaire: "When the masses undertake to reason, all is lost."

The text has scores of aphoristic stuff, such as:

Morality is real, and therefore responsibility is real.
But how could responsibility be real if there was no choice?
There would be no responsibility and therefore no morality if there was no choice, but morality and responsibility are real, and so choice must be real, also.

That and the chapter before it use the same form of propositional logical argument, which you evidently cannot identify.

I didn't read the whole thing,

That's honest enough of you, at least in the confession, if not in your reviewing practice.

Of a nineteen-hundred-word work, which even says that it is that short in its very Introduction.

And even has a free PDF provided for an even quicker run-through than given by the click-on-text-to-advance xhtml web-book interface (and which helps give you a better feel for the overall structure of the book, too, although it's not as pretty as the web-book).

but it seems that if one is going to respond to the issue of whether morality is "real," one should define what is "real," and then show that morality satisfies that criteria. I didn't see any attempt to do any of this.

I wonder how a lawyer going into civil court in a tort case starting his address to the jury "What is re-al? what is truuth? what is mor-aal-i-tyy?" would go over?

Adults generally know the meanings of those words well enough to go on with.

And have you ever objected in this forum to the use of those words without definition by authors you like?

Gibberish is one way to look at it. Another way: This could be a New Age bestseller!

Mere, and more, sneering.

John Kennard

[Doug]

That and the chapter before it use the same form of propositional logical argument, which you evidently cannot identify.

I don't need formally identify your argument that I quoted in order to see that your premises are unsupported. (You have a combination of Modus Tollens and Hypothetical Syllogism, but you switch your conclusion at the end (you mention choice when presumably your argument was about morality) and kind of scramble your argument.)

For example, your premise "Morality is real, and therefore responsibility is real." OK, you say morality is real. Who doubts that responsibility is real? And if someone doubts it, wouldn't that person ALSO doubt that morality is real? So if that person doubts the reality of morality and responsibility, are you really going to convince that person just by SAYING that they are real? Your premises are unsupported. This weakens what you are trying to say.

I didn't read the whole thing,

That's honest enough of you, at least in the confession, if not in your reviewing practice.

Of a nineteen-hundred-word work, which even says that it is that short in its very Introduction.

DOUG
1900 words. I can write 1900 words while I'm on the toilet.

Don't pretend that I may have missed some diamonds in the dunghill. I read enough of it to have a very good idea of its merits.

You should know that at our next Fayetteville Freethinker meeting a professional philosopher is going to speak on the issue of free will. You may want to attend to hear what he has to say. You may find it enlightening.

[JDKatFFTC]

That and the chapter before it use the same form of propositional logical argument, which you evidently cannot identify.

I don't need formally identify your argument that I quoted in order to see that your premises are unsupported. (You have a combination of Modus Tollens and Hypothetical Syllogism, but you switch your conclusion at the end (you mention choice when presumably your argument was about morality) and kind of scramble your argument.).

Try "proof by contrapositive", in which the major premise of the argument modus ponens is replaced by its contrapositive.

John Kennard

[Doug]

Try "proof by contrapositive", in which the major premise of the argument modus ponens is replaced by its contrapositive. John Kennard

DOUG
You should stick to simple Modus Ponens. You need to learn how to walk before you can run.

If the best you can do to defend against the charge of unsupported assertions is name your arguments, you need to rethink your project.

[Doug]

DOUG
Somebody sent me this bit of trivia:

August 7th 2009 AT 5 MINUTES AND 6 SECONDS AFTER 4 A.M.,
ON THE 7TH OF AUGUST, THIS YEAR,
THE TIME AND DATE WILL BE: 04:05:06 07-08-09

THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN UNTIL THE YEAR 3009!!!

DOUG writes:

OK, so it occurred to me that on September 9th, at 9 minutes and 9 seconds past 9:00 am, it will be:

09:09:09 09-09-09

This, too, won't happen again until 3009.

[Dardedar]

Doug, those numbers will all be moot since we will soon be changing to the Christopher Columbus Calender.

[Savonarola]

OK, so it occurred to me that on September 9th, at 9 minutes and 9 seconds past 9:00 am, it will be:

09:09:09 09-09-09

This, too, won't happen again until 3009.

When a friend shared this with me, I pointed out that we can do countless other "special" combinations:

01:02:03 04-05-06
02:03:04 05-06-07
03:04:05 06-07-08
05:06:07 08-09-10

She responded unkindly. People would rather believe bullshit they think is cool; to hell with being logical or -- God forbid -- correct.

[kwlyon]

She responded unkindly. People would rather believe bullshit they think is cool; to hell with being logical or -- God forbid -- correct.

Oh yeah...well...your mom's face is logical!