Comments on: I’m sorry to come off strong http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:20:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: the random frog http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-488735 the random frog Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:54:54 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-488735 'We dont blast on your religion' have you actually read the rest of this hate mail section? ‘We dont blast on your religion’

have you actually read the rest of this hate mail section?

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-311943 bill tomlinson Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:46:59 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-311943 @jennyanydots I've found one agent that might be interested. He's requested a copy of the manuscript. I want to give you a bit of credit for helping me with this. Email me as to what title you would like. billtomlinson@mac.com @jennyanydots

I’ve found one agent that might be interested. He’s requested a copy of the manuscript. I want to give you a bit of credit for helping me with this. Email me as to what title you would like.
billtomlinson@mac.com

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-309515 bill tomlinson Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:54:21 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-309515 @jennyanydots Is the book getting boring or too long? @jennyanydots
Is the book getting boring or too long?

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-302128 bill tomlinson Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:03:18 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-302128 @Jennyanydots Thanks again Jennyany, The three additional 'existence pains' are mine. I don't have much psychological backup for them, but present them because they seem to have philosophical content and do seem to be things that people commonly wrestle with. I have made a few more notes on them in the latest version, which I will put up now. With respect to probability, I forgot to mention that I have a bachelors in Mathematics. I also teach 'Inductive logic' sometimes where I present probability theory and statistics. The principle you're referring to is called 'the principle of indifference', that if we have no reason to believe that one alternative is more or less likely than another then we assign them equal probability. But it doesn't apply to my car in the driveway because I do have reason to believe it is more likely there than not. I parked it there. I have only twice in my life found that a car of my has changed it's location without my knowledge. I suppose then my probability estimate should be closer to 99% than 95%. I didn't mean to throw an argument from authority at you. I just wanted to assure you that I do understand probability concepts quite well. Note that if we used the same logic with the sun rising tomorrow, you would say it either will or won't, 50%, 50% but because probability is involved in rational decision making, the 50%-50% estimate would not make it rational to plan very far ahead. If each day had that probability, then the probability of making it through the month would be about 1 chance in a billion, 931 chances in a trillion to be more precise. Oops, i just realized that 'billion' in Europe has a different meaning. In England it means a million millions, but in the US it is merely a thousand millions. I don't know how trillion works there, maybe a million billions. Having said that, thanks a billion. :-) @Jennyanydots
Thanks again Jennyany,
The three additional ‘existence pains’ are mine. I don’t have much psychological backup for them, but present them because they seem to have philosophical content and do seem to be things that people commonly wrestle with. I have made a few more notes on them in the latest version, which I will put up now.
With respect to probability, I forgot to mention that I have a bachelors in Mathematics. I also teach ‘Inductive logic’ sometimes where I present probability theory and statistics. The principle you’re referring to is called ‘the principle of indifference’, that if we have no reason to believe that one alternative is more or less likely than another then we assign them equal probability. But it doesn’t apply to my car in the driveway because I do have reason to believe it is more likely there than not. I parked it there. I have only twice in my life found that a car of my has changed it’s location without my knowledge. I suppose then my probability estimate should be closer to 99% than 95%.
I didn’t mean to throw an argument from authority at you. I just wanted to assure you that I do understand probability concepts quite well.
Note that if we used the same logic with the sun rising tomorrow, you would say it either will or won’t, 50%, 50% but because probability is involved in rational decision making, the 50%-50% estimate would not make it rational to plan very far ahead. If each day had that probability, then the probability of making it through the month would be about 1 chance in a billion, 931 chances in a trillion to be more precise.
Oops, i just realized that ‘billion’ in Europe has a different meaning. In England it means a million millions, but in the US it is merely a thousand millions. I don’t know how trillion works there, maybe a million billions.
Having said that, thanks a billion. :-)

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-300038 bill tomlinson Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:10:18 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-300038 @Jennyanydots I did attempt to explain what is going on with 'God's law' when I said the following: The first thing that may stand out here is that this theory is supposed to define right action for everyone, even (and maybe especially) the atheist. So what is rule #3 doing here? We'll, we should keep in mind that this is meant to be a <I>semantical</I> theory of what right action is, which is to say that the proposed is intended to answer the question "What is conveyed when a person makes a claim involving 'right action'?" I believe we can trace any such claim to one or more of these three principles. This is really key in understanding the nature of my proposal. So if it is not clear here, I need to say it another way, or maybe add a few more paragraphs to clarify. What do you think? @Jennyanydots

I did attempt to explain what is going on with ‘God’s law’ when I said the following:

The first thing that may stand out here is that this theory is supposed to define right action for everyone, even (and maybe especially) the atheist. So what is rule #3 doing here? We’ll, we should keep in mind that this is meant to be a semantical theory of what right action is, which is to say that the proposed is intended to answer the question “What is conveyed when a person makes a claim involving ‘right action’?” I believe we can trace any such claim to one or more of these three principles.

This is really key in understanding the nature of my proposal. So if it is not clear here, I need to say it another way, or maybe add a few more paragraphs to clarify.

What do you think?

]]> By: Jennyanydots http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-299957 Jennyanydots Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:28:16 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-299957 Chapter 14 . Para 1 – think “the” may not be needed before the title, unless it’s actually part of the title, in which case it should be formatted to match. Also, you either need to replace the “by” with a comma, or put a comma after the name and then say “HE introduces”. After your suggested truth no. 7 (taking this as para 4, but wanted to make sure I identified it clearly as such so you can tie in any later comments to the right place) it should be “jump out at us”, rather than “we”. Possibly a few too many instances of starting with “But” again in the rest of this section – you might want to consider them each in turn and see if you can rework any of these to bring it down again. I’d also suggest looking in particular at para 11 to think about clarity of that first sentence. I’d also be interested to see you expand on the parts of our mind affected by religion – is 7 a generally agreed figure, or a number you came up with? In either case, I’d recommending explaining why you say this, and preferably indicate what those bits are, or give somebody a reference to the medical or psychological studies to follow up on this. It’s an interesting concept that I think needs more explanation. . ‘Are we alone’ – Para 1 – “paying attention to are aloneness” – should be “our”. Also, being picky again, you’ve got a random space in between the end of the sentence and the . ‘Does life have no obvious meaning’ – para 2 – “feelings… don’t” or “feeling… doesn’t”. Para 4 – either “by Peter Ward”, or “I read Peter Ward’s…” would be better better phrasing. Then “life may BE common”. ‘Are we ultimately responsible for our life’ – Para 3 – you need another word, perhaps “became”, before “totally responsible” at the end of this para. Para 4 – not sure about the phrasing for “why this freedom…” I think the reader has to make too much of a leap in figuring out what you want to say, which opens it up to misinterpretation. ‘Is nothing certain?’ – para 2 – “he IS not being a good person”. Para 3 – It’s been a long time since I did statistics, but something doesn’t seem to ring true on the probability thing. Can you find a mathematician able to clarify this – it seems to me that, unless you put a time frame in, the probability must be equal – either the car is there, or it is not. Is probability the right word here, or is chance more apt? I’m waffling here, because I really can’t recall how this is supposed to work but I’d advise checking it out with someone who does understand it. ‘No justice, no significance’ – para 2 – “insignificant”, rather than “insignificance”. Also “seem”, not “see”, and you might want to look again at “they should not have added here”. Chapter 14
.
Para 1 – think “the” may not be needed before the title, unless it’s actually part of the title, in which case it should be formatted to match. Also, you either need to replace the “by” with a comma, or put a comma after the name and then say “HE introduces”.
After your suggested truth no. 7 (taking this as para 4, but wanted to make sure I identified it clearly as such so you can tie in any later comments to the right place) it should be “jump out at us”, rather than “we”.
Possibly a few too many instances of starting with “But” again in the rest of this section – you might want to consider them each in turn and see if you can rework any of these to bring it down again. I’d also suggest looking in particular at para 11 to think about clarity of that first sentence. I’d also be interested to see you expand on the parts of our mind affected by religion – is 7 a generally agreed figure, or a number you came up with? In either case, I’d recommending explaining why you say this, and preferably indicate what those bits are, or give somebody a reference to the medical or psychological studies to follow up on this. It’s an interesting concept that I think needs more explanation.
.
‘Are we alone’ – Para 1 – “paying attention to are aloneness” – should be “our”. Also, being picky again, you’ve got a random space in between the end of the sentence and the .
‘Does life have no obvious meaning’ – para 2 – “feelings… don’t” or “feeling… doesn’t”.
Para 4 – either “by Peter Ward”, or “I read Peter Ward’s…” would be better better phrasing. Then “life may BE common”.
‘Are we ultimately responsible for our life’ – Para 3 – you need another word, perhaps “became”, before “totally responsible” at the end of this para.
Para 4 – not sure about the phrasing for “why this freedom…” I think the reader has to make too much of a leap in figuring out what you want to say, which opens it up to misinterpretation.
‘Is nothing certain?’ – para 2 – “he IS not being a good person”.
Para 3 – It’s been a long time since I did statistics, but something doesn’t seem to ring true on the probability thing. Can you find a mathematician able to clarify this – it seems to me that, unless you put a time frame in, the probability must be equal – either the car is there, or it is not. Is probability the right word here, or is chance more apt? I’m waffling here, because I really can’t recall how this is supposed to work but I’d advise checking it out with someone who does understand it.
‘No justice, no significance’ – para 2 – “insignificant”, rather than “insignificance”. Also “seem”, not “see”, and you might want to look again at “they should not have added here”.

]]> By: Jennyanydots http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-299954 Jennyanydots Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:28:01 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-299954 Got through the next couple of chapters so I'll leave you something to occupy your time over the weekend! Have a good one. . Chapter 13 . Para 1 – “can be reduced it to the other two” – no “it”. Para 4 – “is that it WOULD be able”. Para 5 – insert punctuation of your choice after “possibilities”. Para 10 – “This is what is aT stake”. Para 12 – “In particular when the question comes up ‘…’” – re-ordering this would make it a better sentence. Try moving “comes up” to after the quote (and the ?) and see if you prefer the way that reads, otherwise it would be worth rewriting it more comprehensively. Also, “by asking ourselves ‘…” – you open the quote but don’t close it again. Para 13 – I’m not convinced the opening sentence is as clear as it could be here - it might be worth checking it over to see if you can reword it to make it utterly transparent. The overall theme is understandable (assuming I understood it right, anyway), but I did have to read it very carefully. Para 14 – you might want to put a “will” in here too (before “still be interpreted”). Got through the next couple of chapters so I’ll leave you something to occupy your time over the weekend! Have a good one.
.
Chapter 13
.
Para 1 – “can be reduced it to the other two” – no “it”.
Para 4 – “is that it WOULD be able”.
Para 5 – insert punctuation of your choice after “possibilities”.
Para 10 – “This is what is aT stake”.
Para 12 – “In particular when the question comes up ‘…’” – re-ordering this would make it a better sentence. Try moving “comes up” to after the quote (and the ?) and see if you prefer the way that reads, otherwise it would be worth rewriting it more comprehensively. Also, “by asking ourselves ‘…” – you open the quote but don’t close it again.
Para 13 – I’m not convinced the opening sentence is as clear as it could be here - it might be worth checking it over to see if you can reword it to make it utterly transparent. The overall theme is understandable (assuming I understood it right, anyway), but I did have to read it very carefully.
Para 14 – you might want to put a “will” in here too (before “still be interpreted”).

]]> By: Jennyanydots http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-298687 Jennyanydots Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:48:57 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-298687 Been out for a few days and not had chance to read the next bit, but just thought I'd weigh in here on Perna de Pau's suggestion. When I first read it, I felt very uncomfortable with the suggestion that God's law was one of the three main requirements for morality, as it seemed to jar with the whole suggestion of the document explaining why atheists can be moral. I agree that once you reach that chapter and explain that it isn't actually needed at all in the theory it makes sense - you couldn't have that argument without first setting it up as part of the theory to look at closer but you do have to read quite a bit of this text before you get to a clear explanation as to why you put it in there. As a compromise, might it be worth setting something in place when you first refer to this list to clarify why it's in there. Been out for a few days and not had chance to read the next bit, but just thought I’d weigh in here on Perna de Pau’s suggestion. When I first read it, I felt very uncomfortable with the suggestion that God’s law was one of the three main requirements for morality, as it seemed to jar with the whole suggestion of the document explaining why atheists can be moral. I agree that once you reach that chapter and explain that it isn’t actually needed at all in the theory it makes sense - you couldn’t have that argument without first setting it up as part of the theory to look at closer but you do have to read quite a bit of this text before you get to a clear explanation as to why you put it in there. As a compromise, might it be worth setting something in place when you first refer to this list to clarify why it’s in there.

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296474 bill tomlinson Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:23:21 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296474 @Jennyanydots Thanks again. I just haven't found a way to stop starting with 'but' in many cases. I suppose you've noticed that I have a lot of them. You are right though 2 'but's close don't make good reading. I fixed it. But, hehe, you may have also noticed that I never begin a sentence with an "and". And I never will. :-) @Jennyanydots

Thanks again. I just haven’t found a way to stop starting with ‘but’ in many cases. I suppose you’ve noticed that I have a lot of them. You are right though 2 ‘but’s close don’t make good reading. I fixed it.
But, hehe, you may have also noticed that I never begin a sentence with an “and”. And I never will.
:-)

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296457 bill tomlinson Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:01:32 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296457 @Perna de Pau On your first point. The reason I prefer the reference to 'God's law' is precisely because it is inappropriate within religious tradition to ask if God's laws' are right or wrong. Instead, the religious are more likely to say 'because God says so'. This carries more weight than 'because society says so' because everyone knows that societies change what they say. I can't imagine a reasonable defending the 'rightness' of an action by saying 'because society says its right. But if you think that it is always appropriate to ask 'are society's rules right?' or 'are god's rules right?' then that suggests that they not are part of the meaning of 'right', at least not the fundamental meaning. On relativism, just because different people find different things tasty, doesn't mean that the concept of 'tasty' cannot be objectively defined. If it could not be then you would not be communicating anything to me by saying such and such is tasty. The thing about defining 'tasty' is you have to do it by referring to a person. There is no such thing as 'tasty' without 'tasty to who'. Sometimes I think the difficulty of explaining this has more to do with many not having a formal understanding of what a definition is supposed to be. Are you sure it's ethics that evolves over time or is it instead our concept of ethics that evolves over time? I would suggest the latter. That as time goes by we get clearer understandings of what is right and what is wrong. Not only is slavery not right, it was never right. Another consideration. If what is right is what is kind and respectful, are you suggesting that will change? @Perna de Pau
On your first point. The reason I prefer the reference to ‘God’s law’ is precisely because it is inappropriate within religious tradition to ask if God’s laws’ are right or wrong. Instead, the religious are more likely to say ‘because God says so’. This carries more weight than ‘because society says so’ because everyone knows that societies change what they say.
I can’t imagine a reasonable defending the ‘rightness’ of an action by saying ‘because society says its right.
But if you think that it is always appropriate to ask ‘are society’s rules right?’ or ‘are god’s rules right?’ then that suggests that they not are part of the meaning of ‘right’, at least not the fundamental meaning.
On relativism, just because different people find different things tasty, doesn’t mean that the concept of ‘tasty’ cannot be objectively defined. If it could not be then you would not be communicating anything to me by saying such and such is tasty. The thing about defining ‘tasty’ is you have to do it by referring to a person. There is no such thing as ‘tasty’ without ‘tasty to who’.
Sometimes I think the difficulty of explaining this has more to do with many not having a formal understanding of what a definition is supposed to be.
Are you sure it’s ethics that evolves over time or is it instead our concept of ethics that evolves over time? I would suggest the latter. That as time goes by we get clearer understandings of what is right and what is wrong. Not only is slavery not right, it was never right.
Another consideration. If what is right is what is kind and respectful, are you suggesting that will change?

]]> By: Perna de Pau http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296335 Perna de Pau Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:15:54 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296335 @ bill tomlinson: On right and wrong: rules are, of course, not invented without a reason (at least they should not be). If they are there it is because it was felt that they were "good". But my point was just that society' rules seemed to make more sense than God's laws. There is no reason why one should not also discuss whether God's laws are right or wrong or to follow them just because they are God's laws. . It is interesting to note that the argument "because it is a rule of our society" does not seem convincing, as you say and I agree, while the argument "because it is God's law" has been accepted by many for thousands of years. Anyway I very much doubt that if you are caught speeding by the police you manage to escape by discussing whether the rule (speed limit) is good or bad. . On relativism I see what you mean but I still do not agree. People do have different perceptions of what is nice, beautiful, tasty or indeed good. This does not mean that there is no general agreement (it is not because I do not like it that a book, a film or a law is not good). My point was not to pretend that ethics are subjective but that ethics evolve over time and are therefore not absolutely objective. @ bill tomlinson:
On right and wrong: rules are, of course, not invented without a reason (at least they should not be). If they are there it is because it was felt that they were “good”. But my point was just that society’ rules seemed to make more sense than God’s laws. There is no reason why one should not also discuss whether God’s laws are right or wrong or to follow them just because they are God’s laws.
.
It is interesting to note that the argument “because it is a rule of our society” does not seem convincing, as you say and I agree, while the argument “because it is God’s law” has been accepted by many for thousands of years. Anyway I very much doubt that if you are caught speeding by the police you manage to escape by discussing whether the rule (speed limit) is good or bad.
.
On relativism I see what you mean but I still do not agree. People do have different perceptions of what is nice, beautiful, tasty or indeed good. This does not mean that there is no general agreement (it is not because I do not like it that a book, a film or a law is not good). My point was not to pretend that ethics are subjective but that ethics evolve over time and are therefore not absolutely objective.

]]> By: Jennyanydots http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296251 Jennyanydots Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:22:57 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296251 OK, moving on now to look at the next unread bit, starting from chapter 12. . Para 1 – “in are own ways” Para 3 – “which OF our negative character traits” Para 5 – “what are moral weaknesses are” Para 10 – “if WE knew this was true of us” Para 13 – “what are vices actually are” Para 15 – “a person might make a commitment to oneself” – him or herself might be better here, to keep the link with “a person”, rather than saying “one might”, which I think would sound too much like the ‘royal we’ here. Also – “consequent” or “consequence(s)”? From your phrasing, I realise it could be a term that’s used to have a precise, technical meaning but I’ve never come across it in that context before – to me it seems more like a synonym for ‘resultant’ and feels as though there should be a word after it. Just ignore me if you know it is technically right. Para 16 – stylistic point, but I was always taught you shouldn’t start a sentence with “but” – you can maybe get away with it occasionally for emphasis, but twice in a 4-sentence para could be over-doing it a bit. OK, moving on now to look at the next unread bit, starting from chapter 12.
.
Para 1 – “in are own ways”
Para 3 – “which OF our negative character traits”
Para 5 – “what are moral weaknesses are”
Para 10 – “if WE knew this was true of us”
Para 13 – “what are vices actually are”
Para 15 – “a person might make a commitment to oneself” – him or herself might be better here, to keep the link with “a person”, rather than saying “one might”, which I think would sound too much like the ‘royal we’ here. Also – “consequent” or “consequence(s)”? From your phrasing, I realise it could be a term that’s used to have a precise, technical meaning but I’ve never come across it in that context before – to me it seems more like a synonym for ‘resultant’ and feels as though there should be a word after it. Just ignore me if you know it is technically right.
Para 16 – stylistic point, but I was always taught you shouldn’t start a sentence with “but” – you can maybe get away with it occasionally for emphasis, but twice in a 4-sentence para could be over-doing it a bit.

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296059 bill tomlinson Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:26:55 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296059 @perna de pau With respect to your relativism objection. Notice that you are saying that people may indeed have different concepts of "good". But if they are different concepts, why are we using the same word to refer to different concepts. If they are really different concepts, give them different labels. See what I mean? @perna de pau

With respect to your relativism objection. Notice that you are saying that people may indeed have different concepts of “good”. But if they are different concepts, why are we using the same word to refer to different concepts. If they are really different concepts, give them different labels. See what I mean?

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296047 bill tomlinson Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:04:15 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-296047 @Felix My car is a little more 60s now. I went nuts the last time I painted it and it is now without rhyme or pattern. I'll try to get a picture up for you, but it's under a pile of snow now. :-) @perna de pau I'd like to pursue your idea that something is wrong because it doesn't follow societies rules. Take your example, the underage kids. Suppose you were arguing with someone who claimed it was wrong. Do you think their best defense that it is wrong would be because it is against the rules? Wouldn't it then be appropriate to ask them if the rules were good ones or bad ones? If they claimed that that was irrelevant, I believe most would dismiss their argument. There is no reason to follow a rule just because it is a rule, but only if it is a good rule to have. To me it seems that someone who follows a rule only because it is 'a rule' is merely a coward. I don't believe most people would stop their defense with 'just because it is a rule of our society'. Anyway, something to think about. Thanks for your comments. I may be able to use this. @Felix
My car is a little more 60s now. I went nuts the last time I painted it and it is now without rhyme or pattern. I’ll try to get a picture up for you, but it’s under a pile of snow now. :-)

@perna de pau
I’d like to pursue your idea that something is wrong because it doesn’t follow societies rules.
Take your example, the underage kids. Suppose you were arguing with someone who claimed it was wrong. Do you think their best defense that it is wrong would be because it is against the rules? Wouldn’t it then be appropriate to ask them if the rules were good ones or bad ones? If they claimed that that was irrelevant, I believe most would dismiss their argument.
There is no reason to follow a rule just because it is a rule, but only if it is a good rule to have. To me it seems that someone who follows a rule only because it is ‘a rule’ is merely a coward. I don’t believe most people would stop their defense with ‘just because it is a rule of our society’.
Anyway, something to think about. Thanks for your comments. I may be able to use this.

]]> By: perna de pau http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-295987 perna de pau Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:18:29 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-295987 @ Bill Tomlinson I am a regular visitor of these pages but it was only recently that I noticed your book, which I read with great interest. Congratulations for your work. . There are however some points that, in my humble opinion, need some clarification. The main one is when you present the theory (chapter 3): numbers one and two are OK but I would feel that number three should read "follow society's rules", not God's law. I will try to explain why. Imagine two young persons, just a couple of months underage, who have sex in a most respectfull and caring way. This does not go against any of your three principles and yet it may be considered wrong because it breaks society's rules. . God's laws are supposed to be eternal, contrary to society's rules, which change over time. Today I believe that nobody would claim that a man caught picking wood on the sabbath should be stoned to death as we are told God's law said (say?). Owning slaves and holy wars are other examples of what was once considered "right" and is now considered "wrong", at least in our society. One could perhaps pretend that God's laws had not changed, just our interpretation of such laws but then that is what I called society's rules. . This is linked with my second point, which is about moral relativism (chapter 11). I can see your point and, to a certain extent agree with you, in particular when you say that moral or ethics cannot depend on the individual. I would say however that moral or ethics (and also truth, by the way) do depend in a ceratin measure of the time and place. Therefore, persons in different situations may indeed have different concepts of "good". I am not at all convinced by your language argument about "zzyzx". . Enough for now. If you are interested in further discussion let me know and I will e-mail you directly. . Keep on the good work @ Bill Tomlinson
I am a regular visitor of these pages but it was only recently that I noticed your book, which I read with great interest. Congratulations for your work.
.
There are however some points that, in my humble opinion, need some clarification. The main one is when you present the theory (chapter 3): numbers one and two are OK but I would feel that number three should read “follow society’s rules”, not God’s law. I will try to explain why. Imagine two young persons, just a couple of months underage, who have sex in a most respectfull and caring way. This does not go against any of your three principles and yet it may be considered wrong because it breaks society’s rules.
.
God’s laws are supposed to be eternal, contrary to society’s rules, which change over time. Today I believe that nobody would claim that a man caught picking wood on the sabbath should be stoned to death as we are told God’s law said (say?). Owning slaves and holy wars are other examples of what was once considered “right” and is now considered “wrong”, at least in our society. One could perhaps pretend that God’s laws had not changed, just our interpretation of such laws but then that is what I called society’s rules.
.
This is linked with my second point, which is about moral relativism (chapter 11). I can see your point and, to a certain extent agree with you, in particular when you say that moral or ethics cannot depend on the individual. I would say however that moral or ethics (and also truth, by the way) do depend in a ceratin measure of the time and place. Therefore, persons in different situations may indeed have different concepts of “good”. I am not at all convinced by your language argument about “zzyzx”.
.
Enough for now. If you are interested in further discussion let me know and I will e-mail you directly.
.
Keep on the good work

]]> By: Felix http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-295785 Felix Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:05:59 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-295785 @bill tomlinson Hello Mr Tomlinson...do you still drive the technicolour dream car? @bill tomlinson
Hello Mr Tomlinson…do you still drive the technicolour dream car?

]]> By: Brittni_Lover_of_RAmen http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-295575 Brittni_Lover_of_RAmen Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:45:35 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-295575 ....But its fun. And you know 4 a fact u bad mouth pastafarians to your friends. Its just ppls natural reaction to something they dont understand. so..... idk. get over it. the pics are funny. peace love and pirates RAmen ….But its fun. And you know 4 a fact u bad mouth pastafarians to your friends. Its just ppls natural reaction to something they dont understand. so….. idk. get over it. the pics are funny.

peace love and pirates

RAmen

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-295542 bill tomlinson Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:11:14 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-295542 @jennyanydots I wanted to extra thank you for your encouragement. I sometimes question whether this is as important as I originally thought it might be. The thesis does not seem all that radical nor should it be very controversial. So why does it need to be said? But if it's not that radical, why haven't many people given up the idea that non-theists cannot be moral? I've been talking to Peter, and he rightly pointed out that all of my arguments equally defend the agnostic. Sure. I just couldn't name the book "The Moral Agnostic or Atheist", but I have added a paragraph to it in recognition of his point. I was checking out the field of publishers and got quickly overwhelmed. I've decided to go with the idea of an agent. I sent out 33 one page query letters today. I believe I am likely to get a response from most within the next two months. All of them seem to charge 15%. I don't care about that part, I just would like to promoted it as best as possible. If that doesn't work out I've found a self publishing group called e-booktime.com that would make sure the book was available at Amazon, Borders and Barnes and Noble, but I wouldn't have the advantage of someone working to promote it. I'll try to also find out who e-booktime competes with before I decide who to go with. It's still a short book, only 98 pages, but I thought I could fill out about 100 more pages of a children's book with lots of pictures on "Why God doesn't exist." Just kidding, I think. hehe Anyway, thanks for your support. I need it sometimes. Let me know if you want me to send you a copy of the query letter. @jennyanydots

I wanted to extra thank you for your encouragement. I sometimes question whether this is as important as I originally thought it might be. The thesis does not seem all that radical nor should it be very controversial. So why does it need to be said? But if it’s not that radical, why haven’t many people given up the idea that non-theists cannot be moral?
I’ve been talking to Peter, and he rightly pointed out that all of my arguments equally defend the agnostic. Sure. I just couldn’t name the book “The Moral Agnostic or Atheist”, but I have added a paragraph to it in recognition of his point.
I was checking out the field of publishers and got quickly overwhelmed. I’ve decided to go with the idea of an agent. I sent out 33 one page query letters today. I believe I am likely to get a response from most within the next two months. All of them seem to charge 15%. I don’t care about that part, I just would like to promoted it as best as possible.
If that doesn’t work out I’ve found a self publishing group called e-booktime.com that would make sure the book was available at Amazon, Borders and Barnes and Noble, but I wouldn’t have the advantage of someone working to promote it. I’ll try to also find out who e-booktime competes with before I decide who to go with.
It’s still a short book, only 98 pages, but I thought I could fill out about 100 more pages of a children’s book with lots of pictures on “Why God doesn’t exist.” Just kidding, I think. hehe
Anyway, thanks for your support. I need it sometimes.
Let me know if you want me to send you a copy of the query letter.

]]> By: bill tomlinson http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-294704 bill tomlinson Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:18:26 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-294704 @Jennyanydots Thanks for looking at chapter 3 again. It slows down my process of putting the latest version on the web to put in the footnotes. I'd have to do each one manually every time I updated. I guess this is just me being lazy again. :-) Thanks again. Let me know if you lose interest. I lost Eric after chapter 11, maybe from boredom. @Jennyanydots

Thanks for looking at chapter 3 again.

It slows down my process of putting the latest version on the web to put in the footnotes. I’d have to do each one manually every time I updated. I guess this is just me being lazy again. :-)

Thanks again. Let me know if you lose interest. I lost Eric after chapter 11, maybe from boredom.

]]> By: Jennyanydots http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-294416 Jennyanydots Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:47:15 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/29/im-sorry-to-come-off-strong.htm#comment-294416 Oops – another one I missed last time – Chapter 5, para 3 of ‘The Moral Dilemma’ – “one side” rather than “oneside”. Decided to continue from the early chapters rather than jump ahead to make it easier to follow the train of your argument throughout, as you’ve redrafted so much to improve the clarity. . Chapter 6 – ‘Experience is the foundation of value’ – para 4 – “as of intrinsically valuable” – either remove the of, or use “intrinsic value” instead. . OK, reading a solid block like this, once they’ve had some editing, really does show the coherence of the theory so far. Overall, the first 11 chapters have raised some very important issues and I think it’s very well expressed. I know you’ve touched earlier on the generic style, particularly with reference to use of I/he/we/you/one – I’d agree that what you’ve got is quite informal, and there is, as someone earlier suggested, a resemblance to the style of a lecture, but I actually think that that’s an appropriate style for the type of work this is. The personal touch, and the analogies you’ve drawn, combine to make it a personal essay, rather than a text book, but I’m not convinced that ‘text book’ is the best way to convey these ideas and theories. By formalising the style too much, your arguments would lose a lot of their immediacy. My interpretation of this work is that, as well as to set out your theory, your aims are to make people think in more depth about their own attitudes, and to identify the reasons behind their personal ethical code. The style you’ve currently got in there is likely to be more effective at this than something dryer and more conventionally academic, not to mention making it more attractive to a non-specialist reader. Oops – another one I missed last time – Chapter 5, para 3 of ‘The Moral Dilemma’ – “one side” rather than “oneside”. Decided to continue from the early chapters rather than jump ahead to make it easier to follow the train of your argument throughout, as you’ve redrafted so much to improve the clarity.
.
Chapter 6 – ‘Experience is the foundation of value’ – para 4 – “as of intrinsically valuable” – either remove the of, or use “intrinsic value” instead.
.
OK, reading a solid block like this, once they’ve had some editing, really does show the coherence of the theory so far. Overall, the first 11 chapters have raised some very important issues and I think it’s very well expressed. I know you’ve touched earlier on the generic style, particularly with reference to use of I/he/we/you/one – I’d agree that what you’ve got is quite informal, and there is, as someone earlier suggested, a resemblance to the style of a lecture, but I actually think that that’s an appropriate style for the type of work this is. The personal touch, and the analogies you’ve drawn, combine to make it a personal essay, rather than a text book, but I’m not convinced that ‘text book’ is the best way to convey these ideas and theories. By formalising the style too much, your arguments would lose a lot of their immediacy. My interpretation of this work is that, as well as to set out your theory, your aims are to make people think in more depth about their own attitudes, and to identify the reasons behind their personal ethical code. The style you’ve currently got in there is likely to be more effective at this than something dryer and more conventionally academic, not to mention making it more attractive to a non-specialist reader.

]]>