Ep. 108: What's next

[Emery]

Alright guys. I will leave it to you. Please head over to the Polls section and vote for the motto you prefer. Poll will be up indefinitely, but once one motto gets a Mitt Romney-like lead, that will be the winner.

Thanks.

[ScottBarger]

Mitt Romney has only a straw poll lead, delegate count is still up for grabs. Just saying.

[ScottBarger]

Some other motto ideas:

"Extremely non-extremist"
"We've been around a while"
"Dressing up "I know you are but what am I?" argumentation so it looks like reasonable thought."
"This is our motto"
"Proving that Nazis can Prove Anything. Really."
"Going where everyone has gone before."
"Middle Ground? You can't handle the middle ground."
"We are as unique as everybody else."
"What Would Emery Do?"

[Keep The Reason]

Some other motto ideas:

"Extremely non-extremist"
"We've been around a while"
"Dressing up "I know you are but what am I?" argumentation so it looks like reasonable thought."
"This is our motto"
"Proving that Nazis can Prove Anything. Really."
"Going where everyone has gone before."
"Middle Ground? You can't handle the middle ground."
"We are as unique as everybody else."
"What Would Emery Do?"

ROFL -- you are uniquely witty, man. I can't pick!

[Keep The Reason]

"Where differences and respect coexist."

That sure seems to address both sides: differences....and....respect. And it seems to maintain neutrality towards the "both sides" that you seem to be referring to. Or do you mean that having a difference of opinion necessarily means that you cannot respect the person with which you share that difference?

EDIT: BTW, I'm in marketing too, and my opinion is that the new motto flat out sucks. Talk about platitudes...

Well, I don't respect ideologies unworthy of respect. I don't respect sharia law, or Nazism, or communism as specific ideologies -- I think they are failed belief systems.

I don't respect a lot of Christinaity either; though some of it I do. Now, I'm talking about the ideology, not the people. Just to make sure that's clear.

[OzAnt]

Some other motto ideas:

"Extremely non-extremist"
"We've been around a while"
"Dressing up "I know you are but what am I?" argumentation so it looks like reasonable thought."
"This is our motto"
"Proving that Nazis can Prove Anything. Really."
"Going where everyone has gone before."
"Middle Ground? You can't handle the middle ground."
"We are as unique as everybody else."
"What Would Emery Do?"

ROFLMAO!! Terrific job, mate.

Mind you, due to the fact that I can't help but hear Star Trek theme music when I read "Going where everyone has gone before" I feel you've missed the word "Boldly" in front of it.

Also, although succinct is generally better, I think "We've been around & around & around for a while now" more aptly reflects this forum

Ant

[Rian]

Rian: I find myself in the unenviable position of trying to promote civility and freedom at the same time. I changed the slogan from "where respect and disagreement co-exist" because I found it a little phoney: what if one side truly didn't respect the other? Then my motto would be a mere platitude. Certain positions should not be respected.

I agree, but I don't think the "respect" bit referred to the position. I think that every person deserves a level of respect. Even someone acting like a jerk deserves a certain level of respect - people can respectfully point out their errors, then respectfully decline to talk to them. Even when someone goes to jail, the judge doesn't stand up and yell "you jerk, you're a total idiot!". The judge delivers a firm and respectful statement.

Anyway, I wanted to respond to you since I requested something from you. I agree with what StillSearching says, and I'll go vote, and then good luck setting up your household! cya later.

[Keep The Reason]

This is what I could see Emery hosting in the future.

[OzAnt]

Hey KTR,

If you'd like to watch the whole thing, see if you (and anyone else here that's interested) can download it (like us Aussies are allowed to) from here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast.htm

It was a thoroughly entertaining episode. I felt Dawkins dropped the ball a bit (eg: not pointing out for instance that studies showed that having pets also increases longevity) and Pell seemed to own him re Darwin being a theist (ie: p.94 Darwin autobiography reference).

Pell also points out that a soul is "the principle of life", pointing out that it's not like putting a drop of gin into a tonic. I wasn't aware that Catholics thought like that,

Anyway, very entertaining and I also enjoy the tweet feed at the bottom of the screen. Some have to bring a smile to even the sternest of faces.

Ant

PS: It might be important to point out to you Americans that ABC over here stands for Australian Broadcasting Commission and is government owned and as such has to remain as impartial as possible in all matters.

[Keep The Reason]

I felt Dawkins dropped the ball a bit (eg: not pointing out for instance that studies showed that having pets also increases longevity) and Pell seemed to own him re Darwin being a theist (ie: p.94 Darwin autobiography reference).

You have to be really careful with theists quote mining Darwin. Dawkins claimed to be jet lagged, and he seemed off his game (he's also getting older, and clearly tiring of these endless debates-- no surprise there), but the reason he said "that is a lie" is because Pell's comment about Darwin is a lie. You can read his autobiography here, but for convenience let's look at what Darwin said, and let's remember his wife Emma was a devout Christian who edited his posthumously published autobiography.

Nevertheless, Darwin was still quite clear he was NO LONGER a theist (it's common knowledge that he was a theist before his Origin of species):

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

This conclusion (1) was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker.

But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.2

1 Addendum of four lines added later. In Charles's MS. copy the interleaved addition is in his eldest son's hand. In Francis's copy it is in Charles's own hand.—N. B.

2 Added later. Emma Darwin wrote and asked Frank to omit this sentence when he was editing the Autobiography in 1885. The letter is as follows:—

"Emma Darwin to her son Francis. 1885.

My dear Frank,

There is one sentence in the Autobiography which I very much wish to omit, no doubt partly because your father's opinion that all morality has grown up by evolution is painful to me; but also because where this sentence comes in, it gives one a sort of shock—and would give an opening to say, however unjustly, that he considered all spiritual beliefs no higher than hereditary aversions or likings, such as the fear of monkeys towards snakes.

I think the disrespectful aspect would disappear if the first part of the conjecture was left without the illustration of the instance of monkeys and snakes. I don't think you need consult William about this omission, as it would not change the whole gist of the Autobiography. I should wish if possible to avoid giving pain to your father's religious friends who are I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation deeply attached to him, and I picture to myself the way that sentence would strike them, even those so liberal as Ellen Tollett and Laura, much more Admiral Sullivan, Aunt Caroline, &c., and even the old servants.

Yours, dear Frank,

E. D."

This letter appeared in Emma Darwin by Henrietta Litchfield in the privately printed edition from the Cambridge University Press in 1904. In John Murray's public edition of 1915 it was omitted.—N. B.

PS: It might be important to point out to you Americans that ABC over here stands for Australian Broadcasting Commission and is government owned and as such has to remain as impartial as possible in all matters.

You blokes do a lot of it right. Crikey, I may move there.

[mitchellmckain]

"Middle Ground? You can't handle the middle ground."

This made me think of the instability of standing on a knifes edge and finding the boundary of the Mandlebrot set. In the latter case, there is an easily recognizable shape when you look at the whole thing, but looking more closely at the border can be an endless process for there is convoluted complexity without limit. Perhaps finding a middle ground is something like this. We can find many things that we can agree on but the more we try to understand the differences the more complicated it seems to get.

[OzAnt]

"Middle Ground? You can't handle the middle ground."

This made me think of the instability of standing on a knifes edge and finding the boundary of the Mandlebrot set. In the latter case, there is an easily recognizable shape when you look at the whole thing, but looking more closely at the border can be an endless process for there is convoluted complexity without limit. Perhaps finding a middle ground is something like this. We can find many things that we can agree on but the more we try to understand the differences the more complicated it seems to get.

Hggggh. I immediately thought of the movie "A Few Good Men":
Jack Nicholson: (responding to being told he doesn't have to answer a question in court): "You want answers?"
Tom Cruise: "I think I'm entitled to."
Jack Nicholson: (louder) "You want answers?"
Tom Cruise: (shouting) "I WANT THE TRUTH!"
Jack Nicholson: (shouting) "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

If it was a porn movie, this bit would effectively be the money shot.

But sure, we can run with Chaos Theory... It's a bit of an insight actually

Ant

[Brad]

As for mottos, how about rotating through Scott's fantastic list of possibilities above, of course with the addition of the word "boldly," per Ant's correction?
What the forum needs most, IMHO, is to lighten up more and more often. Maybe funny mottos would help promote that?

Scott,
I'd just like to say one more time that I think you've achieved your goal of representing the sort of person a Christian ought to be spectacularly well on the podcast, that is, kind, thoughtful, and caring. This has particular value for me because the Christians who cross my life path most often are rather the opposite (though I bet they present themselves differently on Sundays), and hearing you serves as an important reminder that it is not always thus. (I have a few very dear Christian friends whom you remind me of and vice-versa, but I don't get to see them as often as I'd like.)

But just so you don't think I've gone all atheist wishy-washy or come down with a flu, let me mention that though I started to type "humble" along with "kind, thoughtful, and caring," I deleted that because to me your theological positions are, for a modern-day person, inherently a form of hubris.

Emery,
Best of luck with your new home! I'll say here again, too, that I can't think of anyone who better represents thoughtful, kind, caring, and humble non-believers than you do in the podcast.
One small quibble with the language you used in the last podcast: As you mentioned, atheism, per se, is simply non-belief. Accordingly, there is not, and cannot ever be, a "cause of atheism." There can be lots of causes of atheists. There can be a "cause of promoting rationality" or a "cause of secular humanism" or a "cause of reducing superstition," and things such as those are often considered to fall under a "cause of atheism," so it's really easy to be a bit sloppy and use the latter phrase as a sort of shorthand. But to do so, in my view, gives support to religious demagogues who would lump all non-believers together and label us "evil" or at minimum supports the sort of "monolithic atheists" notions Scott said he held when he began doing the podcast with you.
The above critique, of course, falls squarely under "boldly going where everybody has already gone until they couldn't take it anymore" but me thinks it's the sort of distinction that's important enough to keep repeating.

[Brad]

Btw, not to beat the disintegrated remains of a deceased equine, but if you guys ever want to take up discussion of another book, When God Talks Back might be a likely candidate, interesting to all and not of the type that would dust up the feathers of authorities just by virtue of its discussion.

I've not read the book, only this review and this one.

[ScottBarger]

Thanks for the feedback, Brad!