Stak Contra Sethbag: Sam Harris sucks!

[_Sethbag]

I don't agree with the First Cause arguments for God, by the way. If "everything" must have a First Cause, then God must have had one too. If God doesn't need to have one, then why does anything else?

Even if I did agree with the First Cause arguments for God, however, that would merely stand as an "is". You don't get an "ought" from an "is", so First Cause is not enough to justify any particular way people ought to believe, or behave.

For religion to derive any sort of "oughts" from belief in God, they must first establish that any "oughts" can indeed come from God in the first place (sort out divine command theory, Euthyphro dilemma, whatever), then establish that, assuming "oughts" can come from God, God communicates to us what these "oughts" are, why we should accept the evidence they offer up as convincing and reliable, and so forth. Only once all this has been handled satisfactorily can we finally get to all those priests/bishops/mullahs/rabbis/shaman telling us all what we ought to do.

And none of this has been done, at least in a way satisfactory to Harris, Dawkins, and the rest. Given that all of this necessary work has either been skipped, or botched, why should Harris, Dawkins, and the rest even address First Cause at all? Even so, I believe they all have, in one way or another. I know I've heard Dawkins argue with the whole "there must have been something to create everything, and that something was God" concept.

[_Chap]

I don't agree with the First Cause arguments for God, by the way. If "everything" must have a First Cause, then God must have had one too. If God doesn't need to have one, then why does anything else?
...

It would be really cool if someone can explain, here and now on this board, exactly why this objection is not valid.

I mean, it can't be valid, because if it was valid all those clever theists would long ago have ceased to use First Cause arguments. But somehow I have forgotten all the effective answers I have seen to Sethbag's objection.

I know! Sethbag's objection is just too philosophically naïve to be worth refuting. Yes, that must be it!

[_Aristotle Smith]

I don't agree with the First Cause arguments for God, by the way. If "everything" must have a First Cause, then God must have had one too. If God doesn't need to have one, then why does anything else?

Because on Aristotle's and Aquinas' analysis of what the concept of cause means, a First Cause necessarily follows. Necessarily as in logically necessary, in exactly the same way that the concepts of "2", "3" and "+" allow one to necessarily conclude that 2+3 = 5. If you accept their analysis of what it means for something to be a cause, then the argument is over, a First Cause necessarily exists. If you want to dismantle the First Cause argument, you have to deal with the antecedent arguments, which involves knowing Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy.

Even if I did agree with the First Cause arguments for God, however, that would merely stand as an "is". You don't get an "ought" from an "is", so First Cause is not enough to justify any particular way people ought to believe, or behave.

Again, you have to understand what Aristotle and (especially) Aquinas are saying. Their notion of causation will involve a final cause, which in English basically translates as a goal-directedness that all things have. They argue that the final cause of an entity is objectively knowable, not something merely subjective. Hence, the final cause of an entity is knowable by everyone. But more than that, the final cause of an entity also defines what that entity ought to do, namely act in accordance with its final cause. On their account "ought" most certainly derives from "is" and both define any entity's ontology. Again, simply saying you can't get an "ought" from an "is" is not engaging the philosophy at all. If you want to dismantle how they get an "ought" from an "is," then you need to engage with Aristotelean and Scholastic concepts of causation.

And none of this has been done, at least in a way satisfactory to Harris, Dawkins, and the rest. Given that all of this necessary work has either been skipped, or botched, why should Harris, Dawkins, and the rest even address First Cause at all? Even so, I believe they all have, in one way or another. I know I've heard Dawkins argue with the whole "there must have been something to create everything, and that something was God" concept.

Because they either don't understand the philosophy (and are ignorant) or willfully choose to misrepresent it (and are liars). Since I'm charitable, I'll go with the ignorant option. It hasn't been answered to their satisfaction because most likely they have not studied it much at all. If they had, they would at least attempt to refute the full theory, not just a caricature of it.

[_Aristotle Smith]

It would be really cool if someone can explain, here and now on this board, exactly why this objection is not valid.

Said coolness is now on display in my previous post.

[_Chap]

It would be really cool if someone can explain, here and now on this board, exactly why this objection is not valid.

I mean, it can't be valid, because if it was valid all those clever theists would long ago have ceased to use First Cause arguments. But somehow I have forgotten all the effective answers I have seen to Sethbag's objection.

I know! Sethbag's objection is just too philosophically naïve to be worth refuting. Yes, that must be it!

Said coolness is now on display in my previous post.

I don't agree with the First Cause arguments for God, by the way. If "everything" must have a First Cause, then God must have had one too. If God doesn't need to have one, then why does anything else?

Because on Aristotle's and Aquinas' analysis of what the concept of cause means, a First Cause necessarily follows. Necessarily as in logically necessary, in exactly the same way that the concepts of "2", "3" and "+" allow one to necessarily conclude that 2+3 = 5. If you accept their analysis of what it means for something to be a cause, then the argument is over, a First Cause necessarily exists. If you want to dismantle the First Cause argument, you have to deal with the antecedent arguments, which involves knowing Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy.

Um, that is exactly upside down in my humble opinion.

I'd like to suggest that it is more reasonable to say that if you want to argue that the First Cause argument is valid, you are going to have to establish that what you call "Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy" is valid, since only if they are valid do you get a notion of cause that makes the argument work.

(And by the way - on discussion boards I am an advocate of the slogan often quoted as Hic Rhodos, hic salta. I am not interested much in a place like this in hearing people say what arguments they could establish if only their audience was clever enough. I'd like to see the arguments set out here and now. Crude, I know, but if I want a purely academic discussion I don't come here to get it.)

[_MrStakhanovite]

That's pretty much what I took from Stak's beef with Harris. Apparently, Sam Harris is supposed to make sure that when college freshmen from repressive households read his stuff, they don't think they can dye their hair, get their nipples pierced, and draw Muhammed.

How did you get that from this:

This is getting far too long, so I’m going to stop here and hope this better explains what exactly my beef with Sam Harris is, he is not insightful in regards to the real issues at stake, but rather he sticks to the shallows, spearing fish stuck on a sand bar. One could argue that his purpose isn’t to engage the deep end of issues, but speak to the average person. I don’t buy it, he is trying to speak to the average person but completely leave them unprepared to actually critically engage issues?

My beef isn’t with dyed hair or nipple rings

Is it just possible that these kids were going to go overboard with whatever they latched onto when they left their repressive families and went to college? My mom told me stories of Mormon kids she knew in college who left uberstrict Mormon households and suddenly were drinking and having sex and God-only-knows what other manner of evil once their parents weren't around to keep them under control.

You know, it's just possible that this is a college thing, not a Sam Harris thing.

The point isn’t they act like kids their age, the only reason I included the description is the convey the mindset these kids have. Look what I wrote here:

It’s a stage modern kids have been going through now for decades, but while doing all this, these kids are groping around in the dark looking for their new “identity” to replace the one they just got rid of.

That is where Sam Harris enters the picture, he doesn’t provide them with squat, he pretty much disarms them.

Do you expect Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins to be spending their time in front of the masses attempting to dismantle Alvin Plantinga? Do you think "the masses" would appreciate such a debate? Would it move anyone?

This has nothing to do with philosophy. I don’t care about the quality of their arguments against God, what I do care about is that the entire package sucks. There is nothing to explore after boring rants about religion but shallow books about the origins of morality or the illusion of free will.

Sam’s fans deserve more, and if he is going to make a living off being this kind of icon that gets 20k for a speaking gig, he damn well should.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I should address the Sam Harris pancake/host comparison.

Bullseye.

This is a perfect example of why Sam Harris sucks, it isn't a bullseye and his fans remain ignorant.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'd like to suggest that it is more reasonable to say that if you want to argue that the First Cause argument is valid, you are going to have to establish that what you call "Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy" is valid, since only if they are valid do you get a notion of cause that makes the argument work.

I suggest before trying to fake an informed comment, is to learn the basic distinction between things that are necessary and things that are contingent.

[_Chap]

I don't agree with the First Cause arguments for God, by the way. If "everything" must have a First Cause, then God must have had one too. If God doesn't need to have one, then why does anything else?

Because on Aristotle's and Aquinas' analysis of what the concept of cause means, a First Cause necessarily follows. Necessarily as in logically necessary, in exactly the same way that the concepts of "2", "3" and "+" allow one to necessarily conclude that 2+3 = 5. If you accept their analysis of what it means for something to be a cause, then the argument is over, a First Cause necessarily exists. If you want to dismantle the First Cause argument, you have to deal with the antecedent arguments, which involves knowing Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy.

Um, that is exactly upside down in my humble opinion.

I'd like to suggest that it is more reasonable to say that if you want to argue that the First Cause argument is valid, you are going to have to establish that what you call "Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy" is valid, since only if they are valid do you get a notion of cause that makes the argument work.

(And by the way - on discussion boards I am an advocate of the slogan often quoted as Hic Rhodos, hic salta. I am not interested much in a place like this in hearing people say what arguments they could establish if only their audience was clever enough. I'd like to see the arguments set out here and now. Crude, I know, but if I want a purely academic discussion I don't come here to get it.)

I suggest before trying to fake an informed comment, is to learn the basic distinction between things that are necessary and things that are contingent.

I shall be happy to hear the opinion of any reader of this board who thinks that is an impressive response. (Well, I'll put Mr. S. down as a provisional 'yes', shall I?)

By the way, to avoid having to past back the link, here is the explanation of the Latin phrase above:

The phrase arises from the Latin form of Aesop's Fables (Gibbs 209; Perry 33: Chambry 51), as translated from Ancient Greek "Αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ Ῥόδος καὶ πήδημα" (literally) "Here is Rhodes, jump here!". In the fable, a boastful athlete brags that he once achieved a stupendous long jump in competition on the island of Rhodes. A bystander challenges him to dispense with the reports of the witnesses and simply repeat his accomplishment on the spot: "Here is Rhodes, jump here!"

In other words, go ahead and justify your claims right here on the board. Dark hints to the effect that you have amazing arguments, but they are just too hard for your poor benighted readers count for nothing.

[_Cicero]

Sam’s fans deserve more, and if he is going to make a living off being this kind of icon that gets 20k for a speaking gig, he damn well should.

There's the real bullseye. Sam Harris's primary goal is selling books and increasing his influence rather than actually educating people. I find him eerily similar to Joel Osteen. I preferred Hitchens (although not so much the last ~10 years of his life).