ChrisPine comments on Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted - Less Wrong

56 Post author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 04:49PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (320)

Comments (320)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: ChrisPine 17 May 2011 08:50:18AM 6 points [-]

I'm not really sure how much I should reply to any of this... I'm not trying to convince you that your religion is wrong. Most of my family is still Mormon, so I'm quite good at hanging out with Mormons and not trying to convince them that they are wrong. (In fact, my deeply-ingrained strategy is to avoid conversations just like the one we are having right now.)

Perhaps I should start at the end:

For someone convinced of contradictions you haven't provided any. Remember you have to find the contradictions internally, so within the belief structure of the religion

No, I really don't have to find them internally... I just have to find them within myself. I was not attempting to debunk Mormonism. (There are plenty of sites out there that do that, though, if you are really interested...) This was originally about Wednesday, and what I was saying (or trying to say) was that I could not live with the contradictions between what I believed and what Mormons are "supposed to" believe.

Perhaps this is all revolving around the word "contradiction"... and perhaps I should have used a different word.

And with that, I'm not sure I should even address your points. "Animals are for the benefit and use of man," for example... well, yeah, I just don't believe that. You state it like it's fact.

In general, on morality: if it doesn't hurt someone, it isn't wrong. I didn't think I needed to say that, but I haven't talked to religious people about "right and wrong" in a long, long time. I haven't met anyone who honestly thought masturbation was wrong in a long time... guess I'm out of practice. :-) Obviously "fun" is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "not wrong". My point: if it doesn't hurt anyone, then it isn't wrong. And if it's also fun, then Mormonism hurts you by making your life less wonderful than it could have been (at least in that instance).

As for contradictions in fact: there were no horses in America. There was no Flood, and no Adam and Eve. I know Mormons have that "as far as it is translated correctly" clause for the Bible, but even so: if a book is the word of God, it shouldn't be factually incorrect, should it? (And it shouldn't contain spelling errors.)

And you glossed right over the "there is no God" part. Well, do what you need to do, but for many of us: the absence of God is as much a fact as the existence of the Sun. So a book that says "there is a God" is contradicting the facts.

This is not a logic game to me: this is about what is really right and wrong, and how best to live in this short life we get (since it's the only one we get). And for dear Wednesday's sake, I hope she gets as much joy and beauty and excitement and fun that life has to offer!

And some of that involves alcohol (taken responsibly (which is not the same as "in moderation" in all cases)). And some of that (well, kind of a lot at some points) involves masturbation. And, if she plays her cards right, some of that might even involve polyamory or bisexuality or any of the billions of ways to love people. It's what I want for my own children, and it's what I want for Wednesday.

But in the Mormon church... I just don't think she's going to find that.

Comment author: JohnH comment score below threshold [+] (20 children)

Comment author: JohnH 17 May 2011 03:18:16PM * -4 points [-]

Animals are for the benefit and use of man," for example... well, yeah, I just don't believe that. You state it like it's fact.

I am sorry, was I supposed to not answer from with in LDS theology? That is from scripture and therefore if one holds the beliefs that God exists and that the LDS Church is true then that statement is true. If I wasn't supposed to answer according to LDS theology, which is what I believe, then what system was I supposed to work from?

this is about what is really right and wrong

For me as well. However, you started that sentence by saying it wasn't a logic game. If logic and reason are not to be used in determining what is really right and wrong and divine revelation is out then what are you left with? Are you trying to say you have taken then indefensible but unassailable position of a relativist that also believes logic itself is relative? In which case, you should have let us know this to start out with as any claims of contradiction, if that is what you hold, may as well be saying that 1=1 is a contradiction.

My point: if it doesn't hurt anyone, then it isn't wrong.

And one of my points is that even with this definition most of what you have posted as being fun can and does hurt people and society.

I hope she gets as much joy and beauty and excitement and fun that life has to offer!

There is a scripture that says that "Wickedness never was happiness" but it can give pleasure. It is my position that she will have as much joy and beauty and excitement and fun as she can by making good decisions.

For alcohol, for instance, Wednesday is less likely to remember what she is doing if she is drunk so any fun she is currently having (if in reflection it really was fun) will hold less long term value then if she was not drunk. She would also be more likely to do things that she would regret latter. She is also risking her long term mental and physical healthy by drinking, especially if not "in moderation", as well as the health and safety of others.

there were no horses in America

False statement on so many levels of false. Horses were in the Americas and eventually went extinct. Archeology is not an exact science and just because something is not known now does not mean it will not be known latter. There have been horses found even still so the statement that there were no horses is merely an assumption that because there were no horses when the Europeans came that all horse skeletons found previous to that were either from the prehistoric (as commonly understood, not as defined by archeology) time periods or are otherwise anomalies.

There was no Flood, and no Adam and Eve

Again these statements are based on a lot of assumptions. Myths of the flood exist in almost all cultures so to me it seems arrogant to say it did not exist. Of course archeologist will say it doesn't but they also say that the Mayan ceremonial scepter and head dress were elaborations in the carvings and may not have existed even though similar things are found in dryer areas of mesoamerica and they were made out of wood and feathers. It is the way they work.

And it shouldn't contain spelling errors.

If it had been handed pretranslated from God to a prophet with some guarantee that the typesetters at the printers wouldn't err in placing the type then I would agree. However, it was translated by Joseph reading the plates to a scribe and then that translation being taken to the printers. Therefore, even if Joseph read everything perfectly there was still chances for errors in the scribes and in the printer that Joseph later corrected.

the absence of God is as much a fact as the existence of the Sun

I would have to be an idiot not to be aware of this fact on this site given how much of it I have read. I have stated that I know that God exists and have provided the way that anyone that so wishes can also know that fact. I have also provided other evidence. For me the opposite of that statement is true.

I am aware of many logical arguments for the existence of God but I, personally, do not find them to be convincing without the assumption to start that God may exist making all such arguments to be somewhat circular in nature. Further much of the evidence that I see for a God are used by others, including those on this site, to be evidence that there is not a God which means either I or they are misunderstanding the evidence or it isn't evidence for either position. In either case such evidence should not be used, in my opinion, in any argument over the existence or non-existence of God.

Comment author: shokwave 18 May 2011 11:02:08PM 4 points [-]

Again these statements are based on a lot of assumptions. Myths of the flood exist in almost all cultures so to me it seems arrogant to say it did not exist.

A similar myth in many cultures is evidence of an attractor in cultural idea-space. A worldwide natural disaster is such an attractor, but there are other attractors that are far more likely.

Comment author: ChrisPine 18 May 2011 07:43:03PM 2 points [-]

I'm just not sure we're having the same conversation here, John. I really didn't want to debate Mormon theology or the existence of God. My main point was that the Mormon church is too restrictive in terms of what is "allowed", both in terms of behaviors and beliefs. Too restrictive on things that might give Wednesday happiness some day.

However, you started that sentence by saying it wasn't a logic game. If logic and reason are not to be used in determining what is really right and wrong and divine revelation is out then what are you left with? Are you trying to say you have taken then indefensible but unassailable position of a relativist that also believes logic itself is relative? In which case, you should have let us know this to start out with as any claims of contradiction, if that is what you hold, may as well be saying that 1=1 is a contradiction.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by "playing logic games". Are you really trying to understand my position here, or just reductio-ad-absurdum everything I say? Because I have a seven-year-old, and I get plenty of that already. :-)

And one of my points is that even with this definition most of what you have posted as being fun can and does hurt people and society.

I suspected you would say this, which is why I mentioned "candles and canned corn" in an attempt to skip over this part: yes, alcohol can hurt people, and it does. So do swimming pools. (I'm not even sure which one is responsible for more deaths per year, but they are both WAY more than for marijuana, in any case.) Yet the Mormon church forbids alcohol, but not pools. I am saying that both are fun, but only if handled responsibly.

Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing your arguments, but I feel like you are spending more energy trying to point out why I'm wrong and Mormonism is right, than you are in honestly trying to understand my position: hurting people is bad, and having fun is good. Some things can be fun in some contexts and hurtful in others. The fun ones are good, and the hurtful ones are bad. But I didn't really need to spell that out, did I? I think you knew what I meant.

For alcohol, for instance, Wednesday is less likely to remember what she is doing if she is drunk

Yeah... I don't mean to ad-hominem you, but, just as a meta-statement: this really sounds like the kind of thing someone without a lot of experience with alcohol would say. Obviously she doesn't need to get totally drunk every time she drinks... this is certainly not what I had in mind. But the Mormon church also forbids a glass or two of wine with dinner, once a week. And that hurts nobody. And is pretty fun for many people. The kind of fun they will remember.

Myths of the flood exist in almost all cultures so to me it seems arrogant to say it did not exist.

Arrogant?? Do you have any idea how incredibly impossible such a thing would have been?? Run the numbers on this one... (unless, of course, you just say "God did it"). In any case, one can look at the rings of trees, match them up to older trees, match those up to still older trees... there's been no flood for many MANY thousands of years, on that evidence alone.

Argh! I really don't want to point-by-point debate you on your beliefs! I am not trying to convince you of anything. But if you are interested, you can look into it: the flood was either allegory, or it was a serious "God just did it, then covered up the evidence" moment (and obviously I can't argue against that).

Anyway... if you find peace and happiness in the Mormon church, and you don't feel hindered by all the things you can't do, and you don't feel stifled that you can't decide for yourself what is right and wrong in all cases (I am speaking of coming to a decision that it is unethical to eat animals, for example, which the church would find to be incorrect), then fine.

However, I did not feel that way.

Comment author: JohnH 18 May 2011 08:47:06PM * -1 points [-]

... this is certainly not what I had in mind.

I assumed it was, based on the "not in moderation".

But the Mormon church also forbids a glass or two of wine with dinner, once a week.

Yes it does. You are free to read section 89 where it is so forbidden to see why.

In any case, one can look at the rings of trees, match them up to older trees, match those up to still older trees..

Not sure the trees would have died. Also not sure of the exact nature of the flood. The myth is an extremely common one and myths are usually based on some sort of fact. That we haven't definitively shown what this was based on does not mean that it did not exist.

it is unethical to eat animals, for example, which the church would find to be incorrect

I just showed that the church would not find this to be incorrect. I actually know some members that hold this exact position and they are members in good standing. Like I said some of the presidents of the church have held this position.

Something being culturally being less acceptable has nothing to do with whether it is incorrect or not. That the culture within much of the church would be biased against holding a vegetarian or vegan position it is true but that is nowhere near the same as saying the church itself holds the position to be wrong.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by "playing logic games"

I assume that you do not hold that position then. I have had multiple discussions with people that did hold that position and it is one of the more annoying things to deal with.

I'm not even sure which one is responsible for more deaths per year,

Alcohol causes about 23,000 fatalities a year. Pools appear to cause about 3,500 fatalities per year. Tobacco causes about 400,000 fatalities per year. Cars cause about 40,000 fatalities per year.

Many of the alcohol deaths are also car fatalities as well.

Per usage alcohol has a higher death rate then either tobacco or pools. Over the long term tobacco clearly has a higher death rate. I am unsure as to if marijuana has a similar long term usage effect. To be consistent society should either make alcohol and tobacco illegal or legalize all other substances with a similar amount of harm. I personally think each state should be able to make the decision.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 18 May 2011 09:44:05PM * 8 points [-]

Per usage alcohol has a higher death rate then either tobacco or pools.

Actually, the best available study suggests that drinking appears to increase life expectancy on average even in fairly heavy amounts. (Ungated paper available here -- see the striking graphs in figures 1 and 2.)

In practice, of course, this varies enormously between individuals, and it's somewhat correlated with ancestry. Some people with particularly bad predispositions are indeed better off as teetotalers, but the idea that total abstinence would make everyone (or even the majority of people in Western countries) healthier is just ludicrous.

As for those supposed total alcohol death statistics, these numbers are completely arbitrary. There is simply no reasonable unique way to define deaths as due to alcohol, and with convenient enough definitions you can make the numbers vary by orders of magnitude.

Comment author: JohnH comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

Comment author: [deleted] 18 May 2011 09:48:59PM * 3 points [-]

You are free to read section 89 where it is so forbidden to see why.

As a means of procrastinating, I looked up section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, if that's what it's called. The "why" seems to be that there are people with insufficient willpower to resist caffeine or alcohol addiction (1).

So what? There are people without the willpower to resist chewing ice. Shouldn't the Mormons ban ice?

(1) Wait! I have to be careful here. It never mentions either caffeine or alcohol! It's specifically "grape wine" addiction and "hot drink" addiction -- though Word of God is that hot drink means tea and coffee, curiously excluding soda.

Comment author: Alicorn 18 May 2011 10:10:45PM 2 points [-]

hot drink means tea and coffee, curiously excluding soda.

Curiously including iced tea and iced coffee and curiously excluding hot cocoa and warm cider, too.

Comment author: JohnH comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: shokwave 18 May 2011 10:56:31PM 4 points [-]

that is an assumption that many people make

It's a reasonable assumption, that's why. When we see something nonsensical like "hot drink addiction" which doesn't actually exists in meaningful quantities in the world, we instinctively repair that phrase. The closest sensible meaning is "caffeine addiction", because caffeine is in the hot drinks prohibited, and "caffeine addiction" is something that is in the world in meaningful quantities.

There are a few other things I would like to bring up but my experience with your previous postings indicate to me you come from an unalterable epistemic state. That is, you do not see the need to provide reasons other than God or revelation. I can't do anything with that.

Comment author: JohnH comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: shokwave 20 May 2011 04:30:12AM * 0 points [-]

If God is real and is all knowing then when He says something then that is the way it is. How is that not consistent?

If X then Y

Therefore Y

This is the form of your statement (X is "God is real and all knowing" and Y is "Things are the way He says they are") and I fully agree it is consistent. It is the second step - X is true - that you have not taken. "If X then Y, X, therefore Y" does not assert the truth of X, it conditions the truth of Y on the truth of X.

By way of analogy, there are many mathematical systems that are consistent yet do not apply to reality (in some senses, I believe, they are more consistent than the system(s) that do apply to reality!). Asserting their consistency will not make them apply to reality.

I have the belief that there are reasons for what God does and what is in revelation.

This is already deeply nested and derailed so I don't feel bad pursuing this - could you please tell me what brought you to this belief (that there are reasons for what God does)? Be as concrete as possible, if you could!

Comment author: JohnH 20 May 2011 05:29:44AM -1 points [-]

X is true - that you have not taken

I assume you mean by this that I have not proven to your satisfaction that X is true? I have presented to you most things that are easily with in my reach to show that God is real or to show ways to prove to yourself that God is real.

Consistency doesn't make it apply to reality but I feel it is a necessary prerequisite to doing so.

could you please tell me what brought you to this belief?

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Moses 1:39

Then the knowledge that God is a glorified and perfected man, that is when it says "in our image and likeness" it wasn't being figurative and that when Christ says He only does what He saw His Father do He was speaking literally. Also, "the glory of God is intelligence". Also, the fact that if God did not act consistently then He would cease to be God, as per the Book of Mormon. Also, the fact that when Jesus said that life eternal was knowing God He was telling the truth and God is knowable.

Therefore God has a purpose, He acts consistently, and He is understandable, and He was human but is now perfectly intelligent. Therefore He has reasons for everything that He does.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 May 2011 11:28:42PM * 2 points [-]

Caffeine is not what is prohibited, that is an assumption that many people make but that is not well founded as there are many things that contain caffeine that are allowed.

See the footnote under (1).

The argument remains: if the reason behind section 89 is the principle that because there exist people too weak to resist the addiction of X, then we must ban X, the prohibitions of section 89 are at least laughably incomplete, and at most incoherent.

If, on the other hand, this isn't the reason behind the prohibitions of section 89, then there is no other reason stated. So the assertion that "You are free to read section 89 where it is so forbidden to see why." is false, because there is no "why" given.

Also see Explaining vs. Explaining Away.

Comment author: JohnH 18 May 2011 11:51:04PM -2 points [-]

the prohibitions of section 89 are at least laughably incomplete

Please remember it was given in 1833 and that there is continuing revelation such that many other substances not listed in the section 89 are likewise banned. Also, please note that in vs 3 it states that it is given for a principle so that if one is too weak to resist the addiction of X then that person should avoid X, that is the principle (well, the one that gets the most attention at least)

God does not command in all things and we are to be taught correct principles and then govern ourselves. Hence the reason that vegetarianism is perfectly acceptable to the church. Also the reason that God was not required to list all of the substances that would in the future need to be banned.

Comment author: ChrisPine 19 May 2011 07:21:18PM 2 points [-]

About vegetarianism: you seem to be confusing two different positions: - it is ok to not eat animals - it is not ok to eat animals

One is the Mormon position, and the other is the vegan position. I understand that the Mormon church would be ok with something living a vegan lifestyle. No problem.

I am talking about being able to coherently hold the Mormon position and the vegan position. I'm talking about having the freedom to decided for myself that I believe it is wrong to eat animals. This is different from the freedom to just not eat animals. One is about actions you do or don't do, and the other is about ethics.

If I were still Mormon, I could not give a talk in church about how it's wrong to eat animals. If I were to tell others that I thought it was wrong (I'm really not the preachy sort at all, BTW, and most of my friends are carnivores, but if I were to tell others), I would be told by someone in authority in the church that I was incorrect. That animals are here for us to use, and God said so, and I am wrong if I think that's not how it is. Because an old book said so.

I find this unacceptable. I find the idea (that I am not free to try to discover what is right and wrong in this world) to be totally unacceptable. After thinking long and hard about this (for years), and after accruing a great deal of evidence and experience, I have come to believe something, and someone who has never thought much about it at all can just tell me that I'm wrong, and This Is The Mormon Truth, because it's written in an old book. It's everything this website is against!! (IMHO)

Now don't take this the wrong way: I welcome religious people to this website, I value differing points of view, and I think we can all stand to be a bit less wrong. But I have to ask: given your viewpoints (which seem to suggest that the way to be less wrong is to listen to god and read your scriptures)... why are you here?? What are you getting out of this?

Anyway... about the alcohol: did you even read what I originally wrote? I wrote "alcohol (taken responsibly (which is not the same as "in moderation" in all cases))"

Responsibly. Which might (might!), in some cases, be to some degree of excess... but still responsibly. That is what I said. You took that and went straight to every sort of excess and irresponsibility you could think of.

Comment author: JohnH comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: Peterdjones 25 May 2011 02:25:31PM * 0 points [-]

If God exists then that which is predicated on His non-existence becomes irrational

If God demonstrably exists, it is irrational to ignore the evidence saying so. That's a rather important difference.

Comment author: ChrisPine 25 May 2011 07:57:13AM 0 points [-]

[Disclaimer: I'm having a pretty strong negative emotional reaction to this post, and much of this thread, but I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt; I apologize if I come off as snippy.]

Your post only makes sense if God does not exist

No, it makes sense in any case. Even if there's a god. Even if that god is omniscient. Even if that god is benevolent. And even is that god is perfectly rational!!

There's a difference between "rational" and "ethical". (By your argument, Satan could not possibly be rational... is that your belief?) There's a difference between "rational" and "logically internally consistent". The mentally ill can be logically internally consistent, but that is not what we mean by "rational".

Let me ask you again: why are you here? I don't intend it as a rhetorical equivalent to "fuck off"... I'm honestly asking: what do you hope to get out of this?

I don't know if you read Eliezer's recent Epistle to the New York Less Wrongians, but I'd like to highlight a few of the items in the list of things rationality is about:

Saying oops and changing your mind occasionally.
Knowing that clever arguing isn't the same as looking for truth.
Reserving your self-congratulations for the occasions when you actually change a policy or belief, because while not every change is an improvement, every improvement is a change.
Asking whether your most cherished beliefs to shout about actually control your anticipations, whether they mean anything, never mind whether their predictions are actually correct.

These are what rationality are for me. (The second point, in particular, is what I was trying to say when I spoke of "logic games".) And these things are not dependent on there not being a god! (In fact, if you want to convince me that there is a god (in another thread, please!), these points are the way to do it.)

Are you here to say 'oops' on occasion? Are you here to look for the truth (or are you convinced that you've already found it)?

Rationality, the set of tools for for examining and changing our beliefs, necessarily must be more basic than any of your beliefs. Otherwise, it isn't rationality... just logic games.

I'm here because I want to be Less Wrong! And that means changing my beliefs, and not to be more in-line with everyone else here! For example, my most recent 'oops':

I recently adopted a vegan lifestyle, saying "oops! I shouldn't be eating animals". (While I may, for the sake of brevity, refer to myself as 'vegan', in my mind I see myself as 'living a vegan lifestyle'. I've even quipped, "No, I'm not vegan, I just live like one.") I don't know if there are any other vegans here, but I've never seen any posts claiming it to be virtuous, and I assume it is a minority view here.

But it was a process of rationality that led me to making the lifestyle choice. While I may have, someday, come to the same conclusions on my own, it was my exposure to Less Wrong that helped me to "shut up and multiply", to overcome my biases and fears, and just say 'oops'.

Even the name of this site helped! Just as this isn't "BeingRight.com", the issue for me was clearer once I viewed (my own personal take on) veganism not as "the Right choice", but as "Less Animals": I don't claim to be right, just a bit less wrong that I was being before.

Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent... but do you see what I mean? That's what I'm here for. Is that what you're here for?

Comment author: Alicorn 18 May 2011 09:15:26PM 0 points [-]

Alcohol causes about 23,000 fatalities a year. Pools appear to cause about 3,500 fatalities per year. Tobacco causes about 400,000 fatalities per year. Cars cause about 40,000 fatalities per year.

Upvoted for apparently actually looking this up.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 18 May 2011 09:29:21PM 2 points [-]

I wouldn't be so generous. The car accident statistics are probably accurate, and the pool drownings might be too, but the other two figures are necessarily arbitrary and tendentious, however they were arrived at.

Comment author: Alicorn 17 May 2011 09:03:37AM 0 points [-]

Nobody I care about much is telling me I can't have alcohol or polyamory, and yet I find that my fun does not involve those things. I would appreciate a less normative endorsement of the options you list.

Comment author: gjm 17 May 2011 10:34:05AM 4 points [-]

Isn't the point simply that what's-most-fun-for-Wednesday might well turn out to involve those things, and that it's not good for her options to be reduced drastically without good reason?

Comment author: Alicorn 17 May 2011 06:23:44PM 1 point [-]

That's what I think. ChrisPine's phrasing implies something stronger.

Comment author: ChrisPine 18 May 2011 06:25:53PM * 0 points [-]

My apologies... gjm summarized my position quite well. I also listed smoking (which I don't do), and some more mainstream sexual pleasures... I certainly did not intend a normative (or even a personal!) endorsement.

ChrisPine comments on Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (320)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (320)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login