DISQUS

The thing about this argument against defense spending is that it does a pretty good job of explaining just why unipolarity has it's advantages. If the outcome of the US lowering defense spending is a Canadian-Russian military escalation over the arctic THATS A BAD THING. As it is, for most medium-sized powers it isn't worth building up offensive military capabilities because basically no countries are able to challenge the US in the short of medium term. Plus, aside from oil-baring Arab nations, we've done a pretty good job convincing the world that we have no plans of invading them. But if we cut military commitments and leave allies unprotected... well then they have to build up their own forces and other countries see new opportunities for expansion and potential, now proximate threats to their security. You've got to cut military spending in a way that doesn't spawn half a dozen arms races.

This doesn't mean it can't be done (you just have to make up the force reductions with increases in the forces of other allies, like the rest of NATO, for example). But you need to make sure the slack is getting picked up by reliable institutions.

GBM did a decent job. Sorry for double teaming you like this.

2/3. I'm not in any way suggesting throwing the gospels out as evidence. When I ask for a non-biblical source I do so because facts are best proved by giving multiple sources. Claiming that the biblical account was wrong does not commit me to any kind of conspiracy theory since the gospels, as GBM mentioned, WERE NOT eyewitness accounts. They were written 40-80 years after Jesus had died. The gospels did not begin early Christianity they likely sprung from the oral tradition of the early Christians- at least according to the consensus view among mainstream historians. Further, given that it was written partisans would it be at all surprising to you if they exaggerated some events to make their savior look better?

And the thing is, I don't think you disagree with this. There are thousands and thousands of religious texts and there is no way you take them at face value. If you did you'd be a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Pagan in addition to being a Christian. You need to provide a standard that will lead me to accept the gospel claim of resurrection but doesn't at the same time require us to accept the evidence for other miracles. You wanted to know what I think would constitute "very reliable evidence" for the resurrection. Frankly, I don't think Jesus's disciples even if they saw and talked to someone who said he was Jesus had very reliable evidence that their leader had really rose from the dead. Its not surprising that they believed he had since these were superstitious times. But if some friend of mine died and then someone appeared to me looking just like my friend and claiming to be him I'd ask him a lot of questions to ensure he knew things no one else could know. And then my conclusion would be that he had never really died- not that he had been resurrected. That might change if I saw him floating up into the sky... but the point is even if the disciples really saw everything they claimed to have seen they still barely have enough evidence to justify a belief in the resurrection. Mass hallucination is actually way more likely in retrospect given that such events don't violate known laws of nature.

As it stands I imagine some disciples really did think they saw Jesus. Their beloved leader had just been murdered and claiming to have seen him would have brought any disciple extra respect in the movement. Over time I think those stories were exaggerated and merged until we were left with the resurrection myth which was then written down.

I guess to answer the question very reliable evidence of Jesus's resurrection would be the same kind of evidence it would take to convince you that someone rose from the dead today. And frankly that kind of reliability didn't exist back then. So its probably true that even if the resurrection did occur we still wouldn't have enough reasons to believe it really happened (though certainly one can imagine MORE evidence then exists now). But then this is true with just about every supernatural myth of the ancient world.

3b. Sure, if I believe that someone rose from the dead it makes sense to consider his claims a lot more carefully. It might even shift the probability toward God existing. But a guy dying and coming alive again does not make it the case that that guy is also a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator who answers prayers and sentences people to eternal punishment for finite crimes and awards people eternal happiness so long as they believe he's the guy responsible for it. (Apologies if I included something you don't believe, I'm merely pointing out that theres a whole lot more to the God thing that coming back from the dead).

I wonder, without considering the evidence you think you have for his existence, what probability would you assign God's existence independent of anything else. What is the probability that a being so incredibly complex comes to exist? My answer is somewhere on an asymptote approaching zero. I mean its really a staggeringly unlikely event even if it really did happen- far more unlikely than a 747 being put together by a tornado for example. Given an initial probability anywhere in this range however, it seems strange that a guy claiming to be God dying and coming back to life is sufficient evidence to reverse the probability.

I guess you wanted to argue with Will but I'll respond. Feel free to reply if you like.

1. Christ is a Greek title given to the Messiah. There was no such person who went by that name. Jesus of Nazareth was likely a real person though there are those who dispute his existence. I'm not familiar enough with the issue and its not important enough to me to investigate. Still, if you're a believer you ought to consider this view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Myth

2. I'd like to see the claim that Jesus claimed to be God confirmed from a non-Biblical source. I'm not convinced of this.

3. Jesus of Nazareth did not rise from the dead. This is the most likely probability because, as a rule, people do not rise from the dead. To convince anyone that some person has risen from the dead you need to provide very reliable evidence. No such evidence exists for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

3B. Even if Jesus of Nazareth did rise from the dead that does not verify his claim to be God. How does that follow at all?

But they're NOT earnest. Thats the point. if they were earnest they'd be trying to answer the question not trying to win a debate. Very few atheists have never actually wrestled with the issue of God's existence. We're a minority and often we weren't raised with these beliefs. At some point almost all of us have considered the various arguments. It just happens that the arguments are really one sided and so, boring for us philosophy types who actually like to try and answer difficult questions.

The students at these Christian schools are just collecting ammo.

Well Plantinga really does have arguments for the existence of God that aren't as ridiculous as "The Bible says so" or "Ever seen a car that didn't have a manufacturer?" A quick google will pull it up. They don't work of course but its not like he doesn't have anything written down. God's existence could turn on these arguments- just as God's existence turns on any argument that purports to prove his existence. But (1) the arguments that I've seen aren't actually that complicated. You don't have to be a trained Metaphysician to understand them. And (2) Plantinga actually doesn't believe the usual arguments work and its worth making him repeat that fact in front of his followers.

In prescriptive English an atheist is merely someone who does not assent to the statement "There is a God", its complementary with theist and those two words encompass all the space there is for opinions on the question. In other words being an atheist does not mean affirming the statement that there is no god (though often atheists hold this view) it just means negating the statement that there is a god.

When someone says they are an agnostic they often think they're giving some middle ground answer, but this is wrong (again, according to prescriptive English). Agnosticism addressees the answer to the question of God's existence can be known. Thus there are atheists who do not believe in God but think this belief cannot be justified in the way necessary to make in knowledge. But there are also theists who believe in God but don't think this belief can be appropriately justified (Kierkegaard thinks along these lines).

Professional philosophers are rarely careless with words so I'm really quite surprised by your experience. Most of my philosophy professors are atheists and I go to a catholic university. I'd estimate most of the majors are too.

I didn't realize Carrier's view was only held by a tiny minority. I missed it in your post if its there- at the very least I should have thought about it... I feel like its sort of obvious now that I reflect on it. Of course if one knows this that changes things entirely and you're definitely right that judgment should be withheld before examining the other side. One of my favorite questions at these sorts of lectures is "what does the other side say in response?"

I mean, if the issue something important thats going to inform your actions then its always worth checking how others in the field have responded to an expert. Usually, people with bs claims aren't actually experts- they have a degree in a vaguely related field from an unheard of university, etc.

So I think I might be with you on the trade sanction thing. But if one were chiefly concerned about providing cheap power for developing countries wouldn't an American cap 'n trade system or carbon tax be a good idea (as it would basically be subsidizing carbon-based energy sources for countries without a carbon regime)? Its not the most efficient way to redistribute wealth to the developing world but politically its easier than just about any method I can think of.

I agree with your general point, atheists can definitely act irrationally. But as to the specific point of the lecture, I think you're wrong. Absent a reason to think otherwise people have no need to doubt the word of credentialed experts. Non-historians just aren't in a place where they can competently challenge those in the field on the grounds of things like methodology and academic consensus. Academics, when speaking to those outside their field, have an obligation to note disagreements among experts. And certainly if there are historians who disagree with the conclusions of another historian they should disagree publicly- and if the issue of the disagreement is of general interest then they should disagree in front of non-experts.

But in no way is the onus on the non-expert to have anything but an open mind. Have you investigated every historical fact you believe? Have you run your own experiments to demonstrate the laws of physics, biology and chemistry? Of course not, you take as true the word of the experts who tell you these historical facts and natural laws because you have good reason to trust the scientific and academic system which lead to such claims being made. Part of this trust is that the work of experts is assumed to be in good faith and that liars and charlatans are eventually found out.

Now I gather you're particularly interested in this question, so if you want to investigate Carrier's sources, more power to you. But I can't imagine why a bunch of atheists, for whom Jesus's existence isn't particularly important anyway, should be expected to repeat Carrier's work for themselves just so they can share his opinion. Now, I'm sure if you asked the audience about their degree of certainty regarding Jesus's historicity you would have found most to be less than certain. And there is definitely nothing wrong with THAT. But refusing to answer the question like you did isn't a sign of greater rationality. Your confidence in your belief might be very low but given that you've heard any amount of evidence at all (having HEARD of Jesus counts as evidence) you should be able to say which possibility is more likely.

Refusing to answer because you might be wrong isn't noble.

Surely part of the reason they will be dismissed as partisans is that they are *also* spouting nonsense.

As far as I can tell the entire economic conversation consists of 80% nonsense, 20% sense and no way for anyone to tell the two apart as every "expert" -even when they actually are experts- is embedded in an ideologically motivated institution or has made their ideological motivations clear in such a way that they cannot be trusted.

Seconding this.

One thing about the Econ growth+ gun control question. Obviously I can't speak for all liberals but my vote wasn't for banning hand guns- I'm actually opposed to a lot of gun control I just don't care about it enough to sacrifice the economic growth. But thats just me.

What ever made you think liberals don't have an emotional stake in the abortion issue, we tend to take sexist policies that force women into back-alleys pretty seriously.

Speaking as one of the 19% of liberal readers...

The reason for our basic distrust of deregulation/ opposition to new regulation is that it is so often, particularly on the federal level, driven by the industries that are or would be regulated. Now obviously said industries have good reason to state their case but when we see that the effort to prevent regulation of industry x is funded entirely by industry x we see corporations acting based of profit motive and not the interests of the poor/consumers etc. Even if the arguments against regulation are good we have trouble believing the people making them have the same goals we do because they're paid by people who don't (which isn't to say corporations are evil, just not primarily concerned with the poor).

The other thing is (and this is no ones fault) when public arguments are made against regulation liberals aren't usually the targets- low information middle class moderates are which leads to regulation opponents making their arguments not about helping the poor but about the government trying to take over Regular Joe's life. So not only does your funding not come from people we trust but often the arguments your making look to us like manipulating people with fear... which is probably still your best bet for preventing regulation in the short term. But in the long term it doesn't get liberals on your side.

Eh. Homo Economicus isn't the end of the world so long as its a model that makes accurate predictions. The problem is most of the "accurate predictions" economists make are retrospective predictions. Ten years from now we'll be pretending we know exactly what was going on.

This comment is a demonstration of the fact that I am ruled by first order desires.

I have a 30 page paper due tomorrow...

fyi, this sort of justification for libertarianism is the right way to bring liberals (in the common usage) over to your side. At least thats what makes you writing for more agreeable for me. In the last few months my thinking has shifted in your direction (though there are other causes too). So as a political (to say nothing of philosophical) strategy you're definitely on the right track.

Of course if all these people want to kick you out of libertarianism for writing this I'm not sure a liberal-libertarian entente is very promising.

So I can't speak for Will. But I imagine the position is something like: Yes, there should be coercive limits to liberty that restrict speech. But such coercion should take the form of social ostracism, voluntary boycotts etc. The reason for this is not that state restrictions are inherently unacceptable but that giving the state the authority to determine what is or is not hate speech dramatically increases the probability that the state will engage in wrongful coercion.

I had an insightful critique of the quiz before realizing that all my thoughts basically boiled down to: "It really IS the shortest political quiz in the world!"

I don't think reducing military spending, in a any dramatic way is nearly as political viable as the legalization of all recreational drugs.

Maybe Dworkin is just being realistic?

Its worth emphasizing that the "liberals who understand economics" model for libertarianism is much more palatable to those who grew up in (left) liberal households (in my case with a Marxist mother).

And I have no doubt there's plenty for me to read up on on economics. But part of the problem is that those on the left wouldn't really have a problem with a far less restricted market if there were market friendly solutions for the issues we were concerned about- like say some form of negative taxation in place (as I undestand it Hayek is ok with this, right?) But for various reasons that kind of program is much harder to put in place politically than is a minimum wage- same goes for a carbon tax versus cap and trade. Now you and I might feel differently about global warming and economic inequality but the point is the more market-friendly solutions to these issues have (somehow) become less politically viable than more statist solutions. From my perspective this happened because Republicans (and a lot of Democrats) are more concerned with protecting corporations than the free market and because the politics of welfare are so racialized.

Well its a lot easier to educate people on economics than it is to reverse the extensive xenophobia of the Republican Party.

As a liberal who's changed my views on trade issues in the past year because I've been learning about economics- I assure you it's possible.

So maybe the paper addresses this but what should someone do if they find themselves feeling as if they aren't prepared to vote well but that nonetheless they are more prepared than a majority of other voters. Given that the vast majority of people will never stop voting for these reasons does it make sense to continue voting as long as you feel you're in the top half of the electorate?

Doesn't the argument have an infinite regression? Lets say I agree that the poorest and least educated voters shouldn't vote. Yeah, that'd lead to huge Republican majorities. But why do we think the average College-educated Republican is qualified in a unique way? Maybe the ideal set of those qualified to vote consists mostly of lawyers and PhDs. That would flip the balance back toward Democrats.

Besides, all of this assumes that people are voting for the common good. If democracy is really just functioning as an interest aggragator (which I think might be the position Will holds) then some people not voting won't lead to better government, just shift power from one faction to another.

And Will, you're blog has made me much sympathetic to the libertarian view than I was, but I quickly lose heart when you forward weird Republican notion of a left-wing media. Its depressing for me :-(