Think morality comes from religion?

You must answer the Hitchens Challenge:

How can ANYONE take Dinesh D'Souza seriously? (Part 1)

This is a debate between Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) and Dinesh D'Souza (What's So Great About Christianity) from October of last year. Dinesh D'Souza is one of those people who thinks that by talking about theology they're doing legitimate philosophy. Christopher makes it a point of saying D'Souza is one of the "most formidable opponents" he's ever debated "on any subject." I do hope he was only trying to emphasize just how awful his other opponents have been, because D'Souza is nothing more than a polished rhetorician who buys his own arguments.

This is a very entertaining debate, but it's the intellectual equivalent of a squash match in wrestling. Virtually everything D'Souza says is wrong, on several levels.

Part 1


Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

I'm writing up my own responses to everything D'Souza said, because there is so much more wrong than what Hitchens addressed. I'll post it when I finish writing it.

On The Line

I fucking love this song, even if it is cliché city. You gotta love the master at work.



Michael needs to get off his ass and finish the new album. He's worse at putting things off than I am. Then again, he's better at putting things out than I am.

On that note, I should get off my ass and record all the new stuff I've been writing.

Vince McMahon gets Rickrolled

Lmfao! This is the funniest shit in the world.

Vince McMahon gives away a million dollars every week on RAW (not at once--varying portions of it go to different people throughout the night), but the first winner he called lastnight totally Rickroll'd him Vince's reaction is priceless.

This incident already has its own section in the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickroll#Vince_McMahon

Thoughts on justice

First, I think it's helpful to recognize the difference between what's in the mind and what's in the world. By "what's in the mind" I mean the mental models we build to represent reality... things like math, logic, language, scientific laws and theories, etc.

For example: the equation for a planet's orbital velocity is V=2πr/P - it's not that this equation actually exists, in the world, and that the planets just try really really hard to keep up in the right direction, at the right speed. The equations are something we create to describe what the planets are doing. We keep using them only so long as they accurately predict what's going on. You hear people talk about how the universe is so wonderful to operate according to these laws--but the laws are merely constructions of our minds that we map onto reality. Reality doesn't obey the laws; the laws obey reality.

By that same token... we don't discover these models; we create them.

And while we, you and I, don’t typically create scientific laws or mathematical models, we all create our own models—narratives—mental representations of how the world works, why things happen, and even what happens. These narratives are our unspoken, foundation-level beliefs upon which all other beliefs are built, and experiences interpreted. Since our narratives are so foundational, we hardly even think to question them—we just accept them. The problem is that mental models are mere representations of reality; rarely do they reflect it. To the degree these models are inaccurate, everything that is done with them and on their foundation will be equally problematic (at least in potential). So, it’s absolutely crucial to a) recognize our narratives, and b) think critically about them, and revise them where they need revision. That is, if you accept the premise that our narratives should reflect reality, rather than merely paint a picture--or, better yet, a caricature--of it.

Part of most everyone’s narrative is this notion of justice—that there’s some ontological balance that gets shifted out of order when someone does something wrong, and it can only be brought back into balance by doing something harmful to the offender (I don’t just mean physical harm—also things like jail time, fines, etc.). The unspoken, unchallenged ideas that make up this narrative include 1) a person’s actions influence what they deserve, and 2) if someone does something wrong, they deserve to “pay a price” for their wrongdoing. We accept these maxims almost universally.

I think they need further evaluation, and perhaps revision.

2 follows from 1. So if there is no justification for 1, 2 disappears. So, let’s take 1, “a person’s actions influence what they deserve.” The word “deserve” is typically used to refer to a person being worthy of either reward or punishment—it’s a concept of reciprocity. But underneath this lies another premise: A1) people have complete freedom of will. This is an idea I’ve argued against. And without that premise of free will, this maxim doesn’t work. Even if you do grant total freedom of will, the idea of reciprocity is still problematic. First of all, “worth” is not a real essence that exists in the world; it’s a mental model. Like all mental inventions, it could be otherwise; and like all things that could be otherwise, it could be better. Why do we even need this model of reciprocity/worth to begin with?

Caffeine, Nicotine, Nazarene