![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I, too, am going to miss Google Reader. Perhaps I ought to view this as an opportunity rather than a loss and ditch some of my news feeds, the ones I subscribed to in a moment of inspired interest and haven't read since, their messages piling up unread until everything gets far too out of control and I find myself forced to declare news bankruptcy with a catch-up all...
Battleground God
Aug. 6th, 2010 03:19 pmA fun quiz in The Philosophers' Magazine which attempts to determines the consistency of the player's attitudes to God. I came through relatively unscathed, despite taking a hit on the question of omnipotence and biting the bullet on the question of proof. However, being a disputatious philosopher, I maintain that neither of these is really an example of inconsistency.
On the question of omnipotence, my view is more nuanced than the quiz allows. Accepting that anything called God can do impossible things means, in my view, accepting that God can do the contingently impossible, but not do the necessarily impossible. As Aquinas says somewhere, it should not be said that there are things that God cannot do but rather that there are things that cannot be done. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect God to be able to create a square circle because the impossibility of such a thing stems not from a limit on God, but the internal incoherency of the notion being expressed.
On the question of proof, I'll bite the bullet and admit that demanding strong proof for the existence of God may open me to accusations of inconsistency. But again, I'd argue that this is only because my view is more nuanced than is allowed for by the quiz. I'd argue that any proof for the existence of God should be as rigourous as any other scientific proof. I'm not sure, on balance, that I'd agree that a proof should be irrefutable — as nothing ever really is — but I'd argue a la Hume, that if a claim makes extraordinary demands then it requires extraordinary evidence.
Thus it is quite reasonable to consider evolutionary theory a settled issue (but not an irrefutable one!). There is a great deal of fossil evidence for the theory. We can draw upon it to make predictions in the form of both lab experiments and retrospective predictions based on where in the fossil record we might expect particular forms to appear. It explains particular quirks of biology which only make sense in the light of evolution. So although the claims made by the theory are relatively strong, it fulfills all the requirements of a testable scientific hypothesis, and is supported by the facts.
However the claims about God are stronger than those made for evolution, touching as they do on almost ever aspect of existence. But the evidence is largely equivocal, depending on the subject and the circumstantial, and the predictions the idea makes are weak and difficult to test. So it does not seem unreasonable to expect an idea that makes grand claims and offers little evidence should, given current levels of knowledge about the world, be subject to a greater degree of scrutiny than an idea that has strong foundations and that has repeatedly stood up to challenges.
It is clear, then, that two ideas are not equal and therefore it is false to impose an equal burden of proof on each. Which means that although I've bitten the bullet and accepted that there might be an inconsistency, I think there are reasonable grounds to believe that I might be able to catch the shot in my teeth...
On the question of omnipotence, my view is more nuanced than the quiz allows. Accepting that anything called God can do impossible things means, in my view, accepting that God can do the contingently impossible, but not do the necessarily impossible. As Aquinas says somewhere, it should not be said that there are things that God cannot do but rather that there are things that cannot be done. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect God to be able to create a square circle because the impossibility of such a thing stems not from a limit on God, but the internal incoherency of the notion being expressed.
On the question of proof, I'll bite the bullet and admit that demanding strong proof for the existence of God may open me to accusations of inconsistency. But again, I'd argue that this is only because my view is more nuanced than is allowed for by the quiz. I'd argue that any proof for the existence of God should be as rigourous as any other scientific proof. I'm not sure, on balance, that I'd agree that a proof should be irrefutable — as nothing ever really is — but I'd argue a la Hume, that if a claim makes extraordinary demands then it requires extraordinary evidence.
Thus it is quite reasonable to consider evolutionary theory a settled issue (but not an irrefutable one!). There is a great deal of fossil evidence for the theory. We can draw upon it to make predictions in the form of both lab experiments and retrospective predictions based on where in the fossil record we might expect particular forms to appear. It explains particular quirks of biology which only make sense in the light of evolution. So although the claims made by the theory are relatively strong, it fulfills all the requirements of a testable scientific hypothesis, and is supported by the facts.
However the claims about God are stronger than those made for evolution, touching as they do on almost ever aspect of existence. But the evidence is largely equivocal, depending on the subject and the circumstantial, and the predictions the idea makes are weak and difficult to test. So it does not seem unreasonable to expect an idea that makes grand claims and offers little evidence should, given current levels of knowledge about the world, be subject to a greater degree of scrutiny than an idea that has strong foundations and that has repeatedly stood up to challenges.
It is clear, then, that two ideas are not equal and therefore it is false to impose an equal burden of proof on each. Which means that although I've bitten the bullet and accepted that there might be an inconsistency, I think there are reasonable grounds to believe that I might be able to catch the shot in my teeth...
The mystic d20 speaks...
Jul. 27th, 2010 08:34 pmVia Bear, I've discovered my inner D&D self. Something tells me this won't really come as much of a surprise to anyone:
I Am A: Neutral Good Human Wizard/Sorcerer (2nd/2nd Level)
Ability Scores:
Strength-15
Dexterity-12
Constitution-14
Intelligence-18
Wisdom-15
Charisma-12
Alignment:
Neutral Good A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.
Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.
Primary Class:
Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.
Secondary Class:
Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who manipulate magic energy with imagination and talent rather than studious discipline. They have no books, no mentors, no theories just raw power that they direct at will. Sorcerers know fewer spells than wizards do and acquire them more slowly, but they can cast individual spells more often and have no need to prepare their incantations ahead of time. Also unlike wizards, sorcerers cannot specialize in a school of magic. Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they have more time to learn fighting skills and are proficient with simple weapons. Charisma is very important for sorcerers; the higher their value in this ability, the higher the spell level they can cast.
Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)
I obviously need to spend more time level grinding...
Who do I write like?
Jul. 15th, 2010 09:39 pmThanks to Alison Flood's post on the Guardian Books Blog, I've discovered that I write like:
Which, it seems to me, may be both good and bad...
I write like
David Foster Wallace
David Foster Wallace
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
Which, it seems to me, may be both good and bad...
Ten signs of authorship
Feb. 13th, 2008 09:35 pmHaving nothing better to do today, I thought I'd run through the latest literary meme: a list of ten signs that a book has been written by me.
- The backdrop is a baroque distopia
- The narator is mercurial and unreliable
- There are no names
- There are many gratuitous descriptions of the music of JS Bach
- The novel is character driven
- The plot doesn't really go anywhere and doesn't really conclude
- Almost everything is symbolic of something else
- There is much dense discussion of philosophy
- Every sentence is far too long and dashes are absurdly overused
- There is a large and comprehensive glossary
And were I allowed an eleventh sign, I'd have to go with complete unreadability!
Regressing to a past life
Oct. 27th, 2007 08:07 amAccording to a complex computer analysis, my past life has been diagnosed as follows:
I don't know how you feel about it, but you were female in your last earthly incarnation.You were born somewhere in the territory of modern Arctic around the year 1250. Your profession was that of a chemist, alchemist or poison manufacturer.
Your brief psychological profile in your past life: You were a sane, practical person, a materialist with no spiritual consciousness. Your simple wisdom helped the weaker and the poor.
The lesson that your last past life brought to your present incarnation: You should develop your talent for love, happiness and enthusiasm and you should distribute these feelings to all people.
Do you remember now?
Of course I remember — except for the whole being a chick thing, my past life was almost exactly like my current one...
The 106 book meme
Oct. 7th, 2007 09:19 pmI guess I ought to do the book meme that's going around:
These are the 106 books most often tagged as unread on LibraryThing; Bold the ones you've read. Add an asterisk to the ones you've read more than once. Italicise the ones you've started but not finished. Strikethrough the ones you hated. Underline the ones on your "to read" list.
OK, here are my answers:
( Gory details... )
The only book on the list I actively hate is David Copperfield, which I was forced to read at a young age, which, fairly or unfairly, has left me with a comprehensive hatred of all things Dickensian. Whilst not actively hating the two Ayn Rand novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I did find them to be tediously pretentious and completely unreadable. Similarly, despite repeated attempts to distill it into coherence, I've always found The Silmarillion to be so inscrutable that I'm unable to say whether I hate it or not.
J'aime, je n'aime pas
Sep. 27th, 2007 09:31 pmA Barthes influenced meme, on the grounds that likes and dislikes are significant:
I like: cats, cheese, cold mornings in fall, long rambling conversations, coffee at eleven, reading in bed, getting up early, rain, comics, silence, learning worn lightly, JS Bach, trashy novels, BBC radio, scruffiness, cooking, opera, email, getting to the heart of things, poetry, views from train windows, sunglasses, porridge made with ginger, apricots, earnest questions asked by small children, good singing voices, crosswords, bagels, Rattle's Mahler 2, allegories, stillness, explanations, unusual words, running, apples, whimsicality, nail polish, elegance, cherries, libraries, thinking.
I don't like: dogs, mushrooms, virtuosity for its own sake, brightly coloured clothes, beach holidays, constant noise, trivialities, meat, telephones, being thanked, poor design, driving, late nights, fish, otalgia, bungalows, crisps, pretentiousness, zoos, cheap sentiment, school biology, thoughlessness, religiosity, noisy coughing, boredom, humourlessness, blisters, not having enough bookshelves, boredom, caves, hangnails, washing up.
I like: cats, cheese, cold mornings in fall, long rambling conversations, coffee at eleven, reading in bed, getting up early, rain, comics, silence, learning worn lightly, JS Bach, trashy novels, BBC radio, scruffiness, cooking, opera, email, getting to the heart of things, poetry, views from train windows, sunglasses, porridge made with ginger, apricots, earnest questions asked by small children, good singing voices, crosswords, bagels, Rattle's Mahler 2, allegories, stillness, explanations, unusual words, running, apples, whimsicality, nail polish, elegance, cherries, libraries, thinking.
I don't like: dogs, mushrooms, virtuosity for its own sake, brightly coloured clothes, beach holidays, constant noise, trivialities, meat, telephones, being thanked, poor design, driving, late nights, fish, otalgia, bungalows, crisps, pretentiousness, zoos, cheap sentiment, school biology, thoughlessness, religiosity, noisy coughing, boredom, humourlessness, blisters, not having enough bookshelves, boredom, caves, hangnails, washing up.
Rise of the robots
Jul. 21st, 2007 06:45 pmAccording to this personality defects test, I'm (a) a robot and (b) possessed of no extroversion whatsoever. Can this really be true? I'm not sure that I believe it. Stupid memetic quiz. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to kill, crush and destroy, but only if it doesn't involve meeting any, y'know, actual people...
SF Writer meme
Jan. 15th, 2007 07:40 pmAlthough this looks like a chronic fix, it's actually entirely genuine:
 | I am:William GibsonThe chief instigator of the "cyberpunk" wave of the 1980s, his razzle-dazzle futuristic intrigues were, for a while, the most imitated work in science fiction. |
Call me Your Honour...
Dec. 21st, 2006 03:50 pmThis is a bit close to the mark:
Ok, so Frome is Somerset, not Devon, but it's the right part of the world...
 | My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: The Most Honourable Sawyl the Sardonic of Frome Valley Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title |
Ok, so Frome is Somerset, not Devon, but it's the right part of the world...
Tarot: the unsurprising result
Aug. 16th, 2006 07:15 pmI always knew I was a gloomy bastard, but here's genuine, unalloyed proof:
 | You scored as XIII: Death. Death is probably the most well known Tarot card - and also the most misunderstood. Most Tarot novices would consider Death to be a bad card, especially given its connection with the number thirteen. In fact this card rarely indicates literal death.Without "death" there can be no change, only eventual stagnation. The "death" of the child allows for the "birth" of the adult. This change is not always easy. The appearance of Death in a Tarot reading can indicate pain and short term loss, however it also represents hope for a new future.
Which Major Arcana Tarot Card Are You? created with QuizFarm.com |
The book meme
May. 1st, 2006 01:33 pmFor no good reason, I'm going to do the book meme:
- Grab the nearest book.
- Open the book to page 123.
- Find the fifth sentence.
- Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
- Don't search around and look for the coolest book you can find. Do what's actually next to you.
My result?
"If he says abortion is always wrong, however, a judgment has been expressed, and it is highly relevent to press Lee for his reasons for thinking what he does"
For the record, this is from Regan's The Case for Animal Rights. He's in the process of pointing out the differences between a disagreement over preferences and a disagreement over a moral matter, in an attempt to demonstrate the fact that morality is a zero sum game. Thus, he says, it is right to submit moral questions to the sorts of scrutiny that are unnecessary for simple preference choices.
Memetic marvels
Mar. 30th, 2006 10:46 pmI know, I know, I should be in bed, asleep, but instead I'm chimping on the net, letting my brain be contaminated by today's meme.
( Click for lame memetic information )
I'm just surprised to find that I have any near friends at all, not matter how many degrees of separation.
( Click for lame memetic information )
I'm just surprised to find that I have any near friends at all, not matter how many degrees of separation.
Lexicological foolishness
Mar. 20th, 2006 04:14 pmToday's mimetic acronym comes to you from the wonderful world of archiving.
WOLF, n: Write Once, Lose Forever or occasionally, Written Once, Lost Forever.
Go on, tell your friends all about it. Use it casual conversation. Help this poor, struggling meme to achieve it's full potential...
Moments of surreality
Jan. 22nd, 2006 06:46 pmUnder the influence of the mimosines flooding my frontal cortex, I've taken the Dali test. It seems I'm a uniquely lovable individual:
Dream caused by the Flight of a Bee around a
Pomegranate, One Second before Awakening- You
have a unique and beautiful mind. No wonder so
many people like you and accept you. You are
aware of who you are and you do not try to be
someone else. You embrace yourself and other
people notice this and embrace you as well. You
get hugged. A lot.
Which Salvador Dali painting are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
I'm shocked and appalled. I've always thought of myself as a mercurial, difficult individual, but I guess I must be a bit low on the old self enlightenment, cuz as everybody knows, random internet tests are always more accurate than many hours of detailed omphaloskeptical analysis.
I'm going to sit right down and write...
Jul. 28th, 2005 10:52 pmSo, not time for bed yet? Nope. Ok, so, why not like, chimp on the web for a while. Hey, yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Let's do the what sort of novel should I write quiz and see what happens...
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
