hairyfigment comments on How confident is your atheism? - Less Wrong

12 Post author: r_claypool 14 June 2012 08:18PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (149)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: hairyfigment 15 June 2012 04:54:21AM -2 points [-]

Are we both talking about logical consistency of the theory with itself and observations? (You know about self-hating number theory, how it shows that truth doesn't enter into this?) Or do you mean to include some aesthetically consistent style that you perceive in Thomism but not Pastafarianism? (In that case, your aesthetic preference is wrong.)

If one of those is right, are you willing to put $500 against $50? I'd need you to tell me all the questions and problems you think Pastafarianism should address. I'd also want up to one month per issue.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 16 June 2012 01:33:48AM 1 point [-]

Are we both talking about logical consistency of the theory with itself and observations? (You know about self-hating number theory, how it shows that truth doesn't enter into this?) Or do you mean to include some aesthetically consistent style that you perceive in Thomism but not Pastafarianism?

I'm talking about logical consistency with itself and observation as well as with itself on a meta-level.

(In that case, your aesthetic preference is wrong.)

So you admit that it's possible for aesthetic preferences to be wrong.

If one of those is right, are you willing to put $500 against $50?

I can't make bets involving money as that would break my pseudonymity. Also, who would judge?

Comment author: hairyfigment 17 June 2012 07:23:36PM 0 points [-]

Ah, well.

logical consistency with itself and observation as well as with itself on a meta-level.

Just for the sake of clarity, do you think it contradicts facts about the 'natural' meaning of "natural law" -- about the rules that every smart human (or suitably extrapolated human) who cares about "being provident for itself and for others," would agree with? Certainly if we assumed no such rules exist, that would contradict the 'natural' reading.

Thomism does feel self-consistent to me if I assume that every law comes from a medieval ruler or similar source. Now assume instead that pirates are divine beings. I'm thinking here of John "I Wanna Be a Pirate" Rackham, Anne Bonny, and Mary "Totally a Man" Read. See also "Kenpachi".

So you admit that it's possible for aesthetic preferences to be wrong.

That was also a joke? I do think you'd change your positive opinion of Thomism (v Pastafarianism) if you looked at all aspects of the situation.