Why do they regard religion as being exempt from skeptical scrutiny? [Archive]

westprog

25th April 2008, 08:02 AM

I'll continue to use 'apologist' to describe these people, but I am willing to vary the verbage a bit - 'collaborator' and 'traitor' both seem apt.

As always, these people keep trying to change the subject away from the question on the table: Why do they regard religion as being exempt from skeptical scrutiny?

They have no honest answer to this question that they can face.

I was going to reply to this (and many others along the same lines) on the "coddle" thread, but that seems to have run off in all directions, and I wanted to deal with this specific point.

Let's first consider how a skeptic should approach the specific claims of, say, homeopathy. What is his approach? How does he deal with the issue?

It's fairly obvious. He deals with the science. He examines the scientific theory behind homeopathy, and finds that it's gibberish. He then examines the experimental evidence, and finds that all the double blind tests fail. It's fairly straightforward.

How does a skeptic then deal with the claims of religion? Well, when it's a claim like "The Earth is six thousand years old and all species were created independently" he follows exactly the same strategy. The claim is in the realm of science, and it is rebutted scientifically.

But what about the claim that the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient being? How should that claim be dealt with? Let's go to the science. What do the textbooks say? Nothing. Shelf after shelf on physics and cosmology have nothing to say about God. No physicist has claimed to have demonstrated the non-existence of God. Many physicists don't believe that a God exists. However, many do, and they seem to be doing exactly the same physics. I don't think the same could be said for biologists who believe in homeopathy.

So the skeptic has to move to another section of the library altogether. He can look in Philosophy, and he'll find plenty of stuff there. Neitzche will tell him that God is dead. He can make the arguments accordingly.

But what about the atheists who claim that the arguments are the same? They claim that rather than advancing a philosophical point of view, they are arging scientifically? They are doing exactly what the creationists do - conflating religion and science in a way designed to cause confusion.

A Christian Sceptic

25th April 2008, 08:10 AM

The scientists Stephen Jay Gould came up with the term NOMA - Non Overlapping Magisteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29)

He felt that Science could answer questions about the material world - and Religion was meant for morality and ethics. It was a breach to jump into either one using the other magisteria - like when the Creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old. Or if a scientists says science proves God does not exist.

In those cases - once the breach is made - the particular Magisteria can then counter it. The scientists can then take on the Creationists because they've overstepped the bounds and are now making scientific claims.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 08:23 AM

Loss Leader

25th April 2008, 08:36 AM

Religion is exempt from skeptical scrutiny because religion is popular and skeptical scrutiny is unpopular.

A Christian Sceptic

25th April 2008, 08:43 AM

Religion is exempt from skeptical scrutiny because religion is popular and skeptical scrutiny is unpopular.

Just wondering - is there a law somewhere saying people can't be skeptical about religions? Seems like every thread here shows religions aren't exempt.

I Ratant

25th April 2008, 08:46 AM

Skeptical scrutiny raises questions about the foundations of faith.
It's uncomfortable to think too deeply about these questions, as it can create doubt about the faith so firmly held as immutable.
Makes the apologist uncomfortable, which makes him angry at having to think about these things at all, and he'll retreat to the "we'll all find it out at the end, so why consider it now" if he's somewhat tolerant of differing views.
"You're going to Hell" is the other response.. possibly as in the past, "And I'll send you there!" which is considered a faux pas in many advanced countries.. Not the US of course, where the sentiment can still be wished, if not acted on.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 08:48 AM

Just wondering - is there a law somewhere saying people can't be skeptical about religions? Seems like every thread here shows religions aren't exempt.

Loss Leader was being deliberately funny, whereas you are so talented you manage it accidentally.

Rufo

25th April 2008, 08:49 AM

In many religions, including the major ones, faith is considered an outmost virtue, being a strong mental devotion to a religion or a God. Doubt is generally viewed as the enemy of faith, which would make doubt a negative concept when it comes to the religion. Doubt is a essential part of skeptical scrutiny. Thus, many religious refuse to apply that method to their religion, since it will inherently harm their faith.

There are, of course, exceptions. My view of faith and religion has more in common with those. Faith should be challenged with doubt, so doubt is not in itself an enemy of faith any more than scientific testing is the enemy of scientific theories.

Still, skeptical scrutiny is a tool. We apply it to what we want. Sometimes we think it's neat, sometimes we don't. To some, it serves a purpose in itself, to others it does not.

ETA: I see I Ratant beat me to some of these points, so you now get to hear them in stereo with different backdrops. Enjoy. ;)

westprog

25th April 2008, 08:51 AM

Ah, a terrible argument. Aside from H. L. Mencken's - and Epicurus' logical argument from evil that the god you propose is actually logically impossible, science doesn't have to answer the question of whether there is a god or not. The god hypothesis is so open to manipulation to fit any new evidence that it can't possibly be refuted by scientific evidence. What science, reason and skepticism do do to the god hypothesis is show that it as faulty as a hypothesis that the universe is secretly controlled by leprechauns who report to dragons in people's in garages and who are administered by an invisible pink unicorn. Go ahead and feel insulted that I'm comparing god to something so absurd, but the god hypothesis is equally untenable and unfalsifiable. If you dismiss one because it's silly, groundless, and impossible to either support or refute, you must dismiss the other.

If it's impossible to refute, then it has nothing to do with science. Science doesn't have anything to say about the God Hypothesis, and claiming that it does is to do Bad Science. Pointing out Bad Science is one of the virtues of this particular forum, and it should be done whatever the proponents beliefs.

Darat

25th April 2008, 08:54 AM

I was going to reply to this (and many others along the same lines) on the "coddle" thread, but that seems to have run off in all directions, and I wanted to deal with this specific point.

Let's first consider how a skeptic should approach the specific claims of, say, homeopathy. What is his approach? How does he deal with the issue?

It's fairly obvious. He deals with the science. He examines the scientific theory behind homeopathy, and finds that it's gibberish. He then examines the experimental evidence, and finds that all the double blind tests fail. It's fairly straightforward.

How does a skeptic then deal with the claims of religion? Well, when it's a claim like "The Earth is six thousand years old and all species were created independently" he follows exactly the same strategy. The claim is in the realm of science, and it is rebutted scientifically.

But what about the claim that the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient being? How should that claim be dealt with? Let's go to the science. What do the textbooks say? Nothing. Shelf after shelf on physics and cosmology have nothing to say about God. No physicist has claimed to have demonstrated the non-existence of God. Many physicists don't believe that a God exists. However, many do, and they seem to be doing exactly the same physics. I don't think the same could be said for biologists who believe in homeopathy.

So the skeptic has to move to another section of the library altogether. He can look in Philosophy, and he'll find plenty of stuff there. Neitzche will tell him that God is dead. He can make the arguments accordingly.

But what about the atheists who claim that the arguments are the same? They claim that rather than advancing a philosophical point of view, they are arging scientifically? They are doing exactly what the creationists do - conflating religion and science in a way designed to cause confusion.

Which relgion does not make a claim about the world we live in?

westprog

25th April 2008, 08:58 AM

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 08:59 AM

If it's impossible to refute, then it has nothing to do with science. Science doesn't have anything to say about the God Hypothesis, and claiming that it does is to do Bad Science. Pointing out Bad Science is one of the virtues of this particular forum, and it should be done whatever the proponents beliefs.

Oh, what a fun lie.

The current incarnation of the god hypothesis makes few if any material claims, few if any predictions, and is unfalsifiable precisely because science has attacked it with a hatchet for thousands of years. Does god make the sun shine? No, that's nuclear fusion. Does god cause disease? No, viruses, prions, bacteria, and other material causes do. Does god make things fall? No, that's gravity. At every turn for thousands of years, whenever god was counted as the cause for some mysterious phenomena, that hypothesis has been proven wrong.

What science has shown is that there is no god in our universe. Our universe is made of material things that interact with other material things. It's remotely possible that there's an invisible, intangible, silent, odorless god who does nothing and cannot be detected, but that isn't what religious people tend to claim exists. God does not answer prayers - that is a scientific fact. God did not create extant species - also a fact. Anything anyone might say about a god who actually does something is false. Anything that might say which is unfalsifiable is, by definition, utter nonsense.

If religious people want to muck about with claims that imply nothing, make no predictions, and cannot be disproved, they can go to the park and play in the sand box with the other toddlers.

westprog

25th April 2008, 09:00 AM

Which religion does not make a claim about the world we live in?

If the claims can be scientifically addressed, go for it.

Claims that their is an original creator are not scientific in nature, and cannot be rebutted scientifically.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 09:03 AM

If the claims can be scientifically addressed, go for it.

Claims that their is an original creator are not scientific in nature, and cannot be rebutted scientifically.

If something cannot be rebutted scientifically, it cannot be rebutted at all. If you claim there's a god who runs everything and you say that claim is unassailable to reason, then I would counter and claim that god is a lemur inside the heart of Saturn. My stupid proposition is just as valid as your stupid proposition.

Once you entertain unscientific claims, you cannot distinguish between them.

Darat

25th April 2008, 09:03 AM

...snip... Science doesn't have anything to say about the God Hypothesis,

...snip...

Which "god hypothesis" is this you are talking about? Starting with a defintion of exactly which god you are talking about might help.

Darat

25th April 2008, 09:10 AM

...snip...

Claims that their is an original creator are not scientific in nature, and cannot be rebutted scientifically.

Yes they are since they make a claim about how reality came about and therefore those claims can in principle be tested.

However that is in fact being very charitable towards such an apparent claim because there is the little nub that many of those making such a claim forget. Which is they need to define exactly what they mean by "original creator" otherwise all they are doing is making marks on a piece of paper so to speak and not actually saying anything.

lupus_in_fabula

25th April 2008, 09:18 AM

Claims that their is an original creator are not scientific in nature, and cannot be rebutted scientifically.

This is just funny. Of course it’s not scientific, thus science it’s not even interested in the claim in the first place. The relevant question seems to be: why make such a claim in the first place, what good does it do? What’s the point of claiming there’s some kind of original creator? If there were some kind of creator – which is extremely doubtful – what good does it do; it’s not like we could make any use of that conviction. :rolleyes:

westprog

25th April 2008, 09:20 AM

Oh, what a fun lie.

I knew that questioning deeply held personal beliefs would upset people. I look forward to more of the same.

The current incarnation of the god hypothesis makes few if any material claims, few if any predictions, and is unfalsifiable precisely because science has attacked it with a hatchet for thousands of years. Does god make the sun shine? No, that's nuclear fusion. Does god cause disease? No, viruses, prions, bacteria, and other material causes do. Does god make things fall? No, that's gravity. At every turn for thousands of years, whenever god was counted as the cause for some mysterious phenomena, that hypothesis has been proven wrong.

That seems a fairly clear example of the extrapolation fallacy.

The point is not that science hasn't come up with an explanation for the purpose of the universe is that it isn't a scientific matter.

That science and religion have become disentangled is a good thing. The Good Scientist should support this, rather than getting re-entangled.

What science has shown is that there is no god in our universe.

Which is similarly the claim of most modern religions, which regard God as external and additional to the universe.

Our universe is made of material things that interact with other material things. It's remotely possible that there's an invisible, intangible, silent, odorless god who does nothing and cannot be detected, but that isn't what religious people tend to claim exists. God does not answer prayers - that is a scientific fact. God did not create extant species - also a fact. Anything anyone might say about a god who actually does something is false. Anything that might say which is unfalsifiable is, by definition, utter nonsense.

Anything that is unfalsifiable is nonsense? Is that the claim? Just want to be sure.

If religious people want to muck about with claims that imply nothing, make no predictions, and cannot be disproved, they can go to the park and play in the sand box with the other toddlers.

You know, there might be people out there who'll be convinced by the abusive posts, but I think that it's mainly playing to the home supporters.

Undesired Walrus

25th April 2008, 09:23 AM

The scientists Stephen Jay Gould came up with the term NOMA - Non Overlapping Magisteria

He felt that Science could answer questions about the material world - and Religion was meant for morality and ethics. It was a breach to jump into either one using the other magisteria - like when the Creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old. Or if a scientists says science proves God does not exist.

In those cases - once the breach is made - the particular Magisteria can then counter it. The scientists can then take on the Creationists because they've overstepped the bounds and are now making scientific claims..

Did Jesus have a father or not? This is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? This is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

Did Jesus turn water into wine? This is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

ACS, what do you think the answer is to these questions?

Westprog, why do you feel the universe needs a 'meaning' or a purpose? What is the non-scientific meaning of thunder?

Darat

25th April 2008, 09:26 AM

This is just funny. Of course it’s not scientific, thus science it’s not even interested in the claim in the first place. The relevant question seems to be: why make such a claim in the first place, what good does it do? What’s the point of claiming there’s some kind of original creator? If there were some kind of creator – which is extremely doubtful – what good does it do; it’s not like we could make any use of that conviction. :rolleyes:

I have to disagree with you - if the terms can be defined then it could be a scientific claim.

However a claim such as "which regard God as external and additional to the universe" is of course nothing more than an example how in English you can make up sentences that appear to be sentences but are in fact meaningless or indeed just nonsense.

westprog

25th April 2008, 09:26 AM

This is just funny. Of course it’s not scientific, thus science it’s not even interested in the claim in the first place.

Then why pretend that it does?

The relevant question seems to be: why make such a claim in the first place, what good does it do? What’s the point of claiming there’s some kind of original creator? If there were some kind of creator – which is extremely doubtful – what good does it do; it’s not like we could make any use of that conviction. :rolleyes:

That's interesting. There seem to be an unending series of posts claiming that such a belief is inherently terribly harmful. Presumably it either makes a difference or it doesn't.

In any case, the people who do hold such beliefs tend to think that the possibility that the universe was created actually matters to them.

Complexity

25th April 2008, 09:29 AM

One problem, westprog, is that you really don't understand what skepticism or science is.

A second is that you are trying to set up the discussion so that you'll be able to weasel out the answer that you want.

(I don't think they're going to let you get away with it.)

Fiona

25th April 2008, 09:29 AM

In principle I happen to agree with Westprog on this: I do not think science has anything to say about philosophy or religion: nor about much of morality. I accept Gould's Non-overlapping Magisteria, and so we can all be happy in the nest.

Sadly, there is the bit where the religious say it: and the bit where they take it back. I have absolutely no quarrel with religious believers who quietly get on with their believing. But they don't, do they? They have always had views about how the material world works: and this is fine because then science has claims to test - no bad thing.

But the material world is fuzzy round the edges and the religious have no qualms about attempting to impose their particular morality in tangible ways which affect my life. If they accept that it is not in the realm of science because it is not refutable ( which is not really arguable, in my view: the burden of proof argument is also not in play on this scenario) then they must also accept it is not demonstrable in any way either. At this point they have absolutely no locus to impose their views on anybody else. Do I take it you are a quietist, Westprog?

westprog

25th April 2008, 09:32 AM

One problem, westprog, is that you really don't understand what skepticism or science is.

That's quite possible.

A second is that you are trying to set up the discussion so that you'll be able to weasel out the answer that you want.

Yes, that might be the case.

(I don't think they're going to let you get away with it.)

Maybe they aren't, but you certainly did. I think something other than the above is required to rebut the very specific points that I made.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 09:36 AM

I knew that questioning deeply held personal beliefs would upset people. I look forward to more of the same.

I don't have any deeply held personal beliefs. If you had evidence that there is a god, I'd be tremendously interested.

Instead what you present is more disappointing rhetoric.

That seems a fairly clear example of the extrapolation fallacy.

The point is not that science hasn't come up with an explanation for the purpose of the universe is that it isn't a scientific matter.

That science and religion have become disentangled is a good thing. The Good Scientist should support this, rather than getting re-entangled.

False. False. And, false.

Religions makes claims about the universe. Whether or not there is a god who effects the universe is an inherently scientific question - because it involves effects which can be observed and measured.

Which is similarly the claim of most modern religions, which regard God as external and additional to the universe.

Incorrect. The only faintly religious idea similar is deism, not Hinduism, Shinto, Christianity, or Scientology.

Anything that is unfalsifiable is nonsense? Is that the claim? Just want to be sure.

Yes.

You know, there might be people out there who'll be convinced by the abusive posts, but I think that it's mainly playing to the home supporters.

I'm not trying to convince you. You're a disgusting liar. You're dragging out old, tired, and long since refuted arguments. You haven't brought up a single original point.

Undesired Walrus

25th April 2008, 09:39 AM

I accept Gould's Non-overlapping Magisteria, and so we can all be happy in the nest.

Gould is quite wrong.

As I said earlier, Jesus either had a father or he didn't.

As Dawkins noted, if we managed to dig up Jesus' remains and determine he did not have a father, could you possibly imagine Christians, or our own forum Christians declaring that this find means nothing to their faith? The notion is absurd.

As A Christian Skeptic adheres to Goulds words, I would like to ask him(her??):

Did Jesus have a father or not?

westprog

25th April 2008, 09:41 AM

In principle I happen to agree with Westprog on this: I do not think science has anything to say about philosophy or religion: nor about much of morality. I accept Gould's Non-overlapping Magisteria, and so we can all be happy in the nest.

And I have no problem with atheists or believers willing to argue on those terms.

Sadly, there is the bit where the religious say it: and the bit where they take it back. I have absolutely no quarrel with religious believers who quietly get on with their believing. But they don't, do they? They have always had views about how the material world works: and this is fine because then science has claims to test - no bad thing.

And anything that is scientifically testable is open for science. That should be as acceptable for religion as for science - because the believers are on a hiding to nothing stopping the scientists doing their thing. Well, maybe no in Iran.

But the material world is fuzzy round the edges and the religious have no qualms about attempting to impose their particular morality in tangible ways which affect my life. If they accept that it is not in the realm of science because it is not refutable ( which is not really arguable, in my view: the burden of proof argument is also not in play on this scenario) then they must also accept it is not demonstrable in any way either. At this point they have absolutely no locus to impose their views on anybody else.

The issue of moral views, where they come from, and to what extent they can be imposed is a whole other issue. I've kicked off two threads today, maybe that one can wait till Monday.

Do I take it you are a quietist, Westprog?

Yes. No. I don't know. What's a quietist?

Fiona

25th April 2008, 09:45 AM

@ Undesired Walrus. Yes, where claims which address the material world enter into it you are correct. As Westprog has conceded. But his position in this thread is different. It may be that science can eventually answer all questions about the creation of the universe. I doubt it myself but I will be delighted if they do. Then the religious will have no claim to make, but until then they can in fact reasonably decide to believe godidit. So long as they keep it out of the material realm why would you object? Nothing at all hangs on it

Fiona

25th April 2008, 09:48 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(Christian_philosophy)

Quietism states that man's highest perfection consists of a self-annihilation, and subsequent absorption, of the soul into the Divine, even during the present life. In this way, the mind is withdrawn from worldly interests to passively and constantly contemplate God. Quietists would say that the Bible describes the man of God as a man of the tent and the altar only, having no part or interest in the multitudinous affairs, pursuits, and pleasures of the world system.

lupus_in_fabula

25th April 2008, 09:50 AM

Then why pretend that it does?

Don’t be silly, what scientific field does?

That's interesting. There seem to be an unending series of posts claiming that such a belief is inherently terribly harmful. Presumably it either makes a difference or it doesn't.

In any case, the people who do hold such beliefs tend to think that the possibility that the universe was created actually matters to them. It matters to them! So what? Whatever matters to them doesn’t change the fundamental state of the universe.

Civilized Worm

25th April 2008, 09:55 AM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that "the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient being" is the most extraordinary claim I know of.

Complexity

25th April 2008, 09:57 AM

Gould is quite wrong about his magisteria, though not about many other things.

However, Gould's magisteria are relevant to this discussion, and in that area he was wrong.

Science is the best means we have of discovering the nature of reality.

There is only one reality, and science is the most effective means we have of modeling and understanding it.

This reality is also referred to as 'nature'. The natural world is reality.

Far too many believe that there are things that are supernatural, that are above or apart from nature, that are outside of reality.

These people are woo and these people are wrong.

The claim is often made that there are issues that science may never consider because they involve gods, morality, ethics, the purpose of life, philosophy, religion, or unicorns.

This claim is wrong. Some of the things in that list do not exist; some are claimed to be apart from reality, which is not possible; some are claimed to involve an aspect of reality but not susceptible to science.

This last claim I hold to be false - science may be used to better understand any aspect of reality.

There are, I think, limits on what the human mind can conceive of, though we will most likely remain ignorant of what these limits are.

Philosophy, at its best, is consistent with science, both in approach and outcome; at its worst, it is ignorable.

There is only one 'magisterium', in Gould's unfortunate borrowing from catholic terminology.

lupus_in_fabula

25th April 2008, 09:58 AM

I have to disagree with you - if the terms can be defined then it could be a scientific claim.

However a claim such as "which regard God as external and additional to the universe" is of course nothing more than an example how in English you can make up sentences that appear to be sentences but are in fact meaningless or indeed just nonsense.

Fair enough. “If it can be defined” seems to be the problem thou. Have you stumbled upon any researchable suggestion which a scientific field has taken seriously?

westprog

25th April 2008, 10:01 AM

I don't have any deeply held personal beliefs.

Then you must have an extremely short fuse. I hate to think how you'd react if someone spilled your drink or scratched your car.

If you had evidence that there is a god, I'd be tremendously interested.

If you had scientific evidence that there isn't a god, you'd be able to claim scientific backing for what you assert.

I've made no claim about the existence of God. I'm critiquing shoddy, careless thinking. If that's a painful process, I'm sorry, but it's probably good for you.

Instead what you present is more disappointing rhetoric.

I think an example of disappointing rhetoric is calling someone else's claims disappointing rhetoric without backing it up.

False. False. And, false.

Religions makes claims about the universe. Whether or not there is a god who effects the universe is an inherently scientific question - because it involves effects which can be observed and measured.

Then no doubt you'll be able to give an example of a scientific experiment, given unlimited resources, which could perform such an observation and measurement.

Yes.

Anything unfalsifiable is nonsense? That's scientism run amuck.

I'm not trying to convince you. You're a disgusting liar. You're dragging out old, tired, and long since refuted arguments. You haven't brought up a single original point.

Then your abject failure to effectively address my tired old arguments must be deeply embarassing.

I Ratant

25th April 2008, 10:06 AM

If the claims can be scientifically addressed, go for it.

Claims that their is an original creator are not scientific in nature, and cannot be rebutted scientifically.
.
Sad news, it can be scientific...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112214
Of course, the Flat Earth Society had their headquarters here for some time.

westprog

25th April 2008, 10:08 AM

Did Jesus have a father or not? This is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? This is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

Did Jesus turn water into wine? This is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

But why seek out such things which are extremely difficult to imagine solving? There's no need to look for Jesus clones and time machines. There's a very specific religious claim - that the universe is six thousand years old and that all species were created seperately.

Such a claim is open for scientific rebuttal. The fallacy is to imagine that because one religious claim impinges on the realm of science, that they all do.

Westprog, why do you feel the universe needs a 'meaning' or a purpose? What is the non-scientific meaning of thunder?

Did I claim that the Universe "needed a purpsose"? I wasn't aware of doing so.

My contention is that issues of meaning and purpose are not part of science in any way shape or form.

westprog

25th April 2008, 10:10 AM

Ah, a terrible argument. Aside from H. L. Mencken's - and Epicurus' logical argument from evil that the god you propose is actually logically impossible,

I think we can all agree that neither Mencken or Epicurus were scientists.

If you want to argue on philosophical terms, fine. But don't do philosophy and claim to be doing science.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 10:11 AM

Then you must have an extremely short fuse. I hate to think how you'd react if someone spilled your drink or scratched your car.

I'm insulting you because you're degrading reason. I'm also meticulously refuting your idiotic noises because it's easy.

If you had scientific evidence that there isn't a god, you'd be able to claim scientific backing for what you assert.

You obviously have no idea what a burden of proof is.

I've made no claim about the existence of God. I'm critiquing shoddy, careless thinking. If that's a painful process, I'm sorry, but it's probably good for you.

False.

I think an example of disappointing rhetoric is calling someone else's claims disappointing rhetoric without backing it up.

I've been quite careful to refute each claim you've actually made.

Then no doubt you'll be able to give an example of a scientific experiment, given unlimited resources, which could perform such an observation and measurement.

Again - see burden of proof. If a religious claimant says "god heals the sick if they pray" that is false, because prayer studies show now such correlation. If a religious person says "god cannot be detected" that's gobbledygook, and has no meaning.

Anything unfalsifiable is nonsense? That's scientism run amuck.

Again, you are wrong. If you can entertain a single unfalsifiable idea, you must entertain all unfalsifiable ideas, because without scientific thinking you have no other tool for finding truth. If you are prepared to accept god, you're prepared to accept the Saturn dwelling lemur - there's no way to differentiate them.

Then your abject failure to effectively address my tired old arguments must be deeply embarassing.

It's spelled "embarrassing."

I Ratant

25th April 2008, 10:20 AM

Off-topic comment:
"a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle "
.
The recoil, the recoil! 120 kilometers and a rifle?
YGBSM.

A Christian Sceptic

25th April 2008, 10:20 AM

Did Jesus have a father or not?

I believe God can do miracles and currently have no reason to believe the incarnation didn't happen the way traditionally it's held it happened.

This would be a case of the supernatural world infringing upon the natural world. I'm not sure how it could be repeatedly tested scientifically though. Miracles only happen once for each instance.

westprog

25th April 2008, 10:27 AM

The claim is often made that there are issues that science may never consider because they involve ... morality, ethics, the purpose of life...

This claim is wrong. Some of the things in that list do not exist; some are claimed to be apart from reality, which is not possible; some are claimed to involve an aspect of reality but not susceptible to science.

This is where scientism - the application of scientism to areas where it emphatically does not apply - can be so dangerous.

I've restricted the list to items which I think concern atheists as much as theists.

There is simply no basis for imagining that science can determine morality or ethics. To consider it can is to show deeply confused thinking.

Undesired Walrus

25th April 2008, 10:36 AM

But why seek out such things which are extremely difficult to imagine solving? There's no need to look for Jesus clones and time machines. There's a very specific religious claim - that the universe is six thousand years old and that all species were created seperately.

Such a claim is open for scientific rebuttal. The fallacy is to imagine that because one religious claim impinges on the realm of science, that they all do.

Yet the parentage of Jesus is seemingly not treated as a scientific question by A Christian Skeptic, as he/she advocates Gould's NOMA principle.

If we found that Jesus did not have a father, there is absolutely no question that it would be held as evidence for divine power in the universe. I'm sure you would too.

And that, I'm afraid to say, is where the religous hypocrisy lies.

meg

25th April 2008, 10:37 AM

Science cannot determine a person's morality or ethics, but reason can,- or should.

Civilized Worm

25th April 2008, 10:39 AM

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 10:42 AM

You see no reason to to disbelieve that a child could be concieved without a sperm?

A male child no less.

If that doesn't seem doubly odd to you, take off the religious blinders - it's genetically impossible for a human female to parthenogetically give birth to a human male, leaving aside the fact that humans don't undergo parthenogenesis.

A Christian Sceptic

25th April 2008, 10:43 AM

Yet the parentage of Jesus is seemingly not treated as a scientific question by A Christian Skeptic, as he/she advocates Gould's NOMA principle.

If we found that Jesus did not have a father, there is absolutely no question that it would be held as evidence for divine power in the universe. I'm sure you would too.

And that, I'm afraid to say, is where the religous hypocrisy lies.

The Incarnation of Jesus is definitely a claim of a miracle. The Virgin Conception of Jesus (if that's the correct way of interpretting what happened - and it does seem to be the consensus for Christians) is definitely a miraculous claim in the natural world.

Not sure how a one time event like that can be scientifically studied - feel free to try.

meg

25th April 2008, 10:45 AM

I believe God can do miracles and currently have no reason to believe the incarnation didn't happen the way traditionally it's held it happened.

What reason do you have for believing the incarnation happened the way it's traditionally held it happened?

A Christian Sceptic

25th April 2008, 10:48 AM

What reason do you have for believing the incarnation happened the way it's traditionally held it happened?

The typical answer atheists hate:
I believe in God and since I also believe in miracles why couldn't he?

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 10:50 AM

The Incarnation of Jesus is definitely a claim of a miracle. The Virgin Conception of Jesus (if that's the correct way of interpretting what happened - and it does seem to be the consensus for Christians) is definitely a miraculous claim in the natural world.

Not sure how a one time event like that can be scientifically studied - feel free to try.

If he had been conceived of a virgin, had raised the dead, healed the sick, transformed scraps of food into enough to stuff thousands, had been resurrected, and did answer prayers someone contemporaneous with him might have actually mentioned him. Instead, we have more evidence for Julius Caesar's epilepsy and adultery than we do for a supposed miracle working messiah cruising around a highly literate area for three years before finally popping back from the grave and flying into the sky.

And still, prayers go unanswered despite Jesus, allegedly, saying that they would be answered. Are there no people with sufficient faith to cast down mountains - or is there no god? You be the judge? NO. Shut your face. Let science be the judge.

Complexity

25th April 2008, 10:55 AM

This is where scientism - the application of scientism to areas where it emphatically does not apply - can be so dangerous.

I've restricted the list to items which I think concern atheists as much as theists.

There is simply no basis for imagining that science can determine morality or ethics. To consider it can is to show deeply confused thinking.

Science can and will discover how concepts of morality and ethics have evolved. Science will be able to explain why some of these concepts have thrived and others have not.

Science will also be able to explain why specific people hold the moral and ethical beliefs that they hold, as well as why they are susceptible to some memes and not to others.

I obviously disagree with you on these issues.

In the future, please do not edit quoted material - you risk confusing things.

ETA: Your term 'scientism' is silly.

Complexity

25th April 2008, 10:58 AM

Science cannot determine a person's morality or ethics, but reason can,- or should.

I disagree - reason can not advance farther than science.

Undesired Walrus

25th April 2008, 11:01 AM

Not sure how a one time event like that can be scientifically studied - feel free to try.

DNA.

ImaginalDisc, as much as I'd like to sex you up, I felt "Shut your face" was a stepping over the line slightly.

Fiona

25th April 2008, 11:01 AM

The typical answer atheists hate:
I believe in God and since I also believe in miracles why couldn't he?

Why would he? :confused:

Fiona

25th April 2008, 11:02 AM

ETA: Your term 'scientism' is silly.

It is a perfectly reasonable term. Why do you object to it?

lupus_in_fabula

25th April 2008, 11:06 AM

meg

25th April 2008, 11:06 AM

The typical answer atheists hate:
I believe in God and since I also believe in miracles why couldn't he?

Do you believe in all the miracles listed in the bible? The waters that became blood? Plagues of frogs, lice, flies, boils, murrain, locusts, etc? Red Sea dividing? Water coming out of the rock at Horab? Balaam's talking ass? Uzziah struck with leprosy? Fire from the heavens? etc etc

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 11:16 AM

DNA.

ImaginalDisc, as much as I'd like to sex you up, I felt "Shut your face" was a stepping over the line slightly.

In my defense, everyone should shut their face when tempted to spout off things that science refutes. We're error prone beings easily capable of believing things that are manifestly false. Science is a glorious tool for self-correction.

Hence, shut your face. Let science do the talking. You don't get to subjectively judge whether something is true or not, the scientific process does. I don't either.

I swear, not having slept in two days isn't making me cranky.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 11:22 AM

Do you believe in all the miracles listed in the bible? The waters that became blood? Plagues of frogs, lice, flies, boils, murrain, locusts, etc? Red Sea dividing? Water coming out of the rock at Horab? Balaam's talking ass? Uzziah struck with leprosy? Fire from the heavens? etc etc

I particularly like the bit in Matthew where all the dead in Jerusalem get up, walk around, and chill with their friends - and no one but Matthew noticed - decades later.

Tailgater

25th April 2008, 11:25 AM

ETA: Your term 'scientism' is silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Edited to cause confusion.

Civilized Worm

25th April 2008, 11:29 AM

In my defense, everyone should shut their face when tempted to spout off things that science refutes. We're error prone beings easily capable of believing things that are manifestly false. Science is a glorious tool for self-correction.

Hence, shut your face. Let science do the talking. You don't get to subjectively judge whether something is true or not, the scientific process does. I don't either.

I swear, not having slept in two days isn't making me cranky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFacWGBJ_cs

Complexity

25th April 2008, 11:33 AM

It is a perfectly reasonable term. Why do you object to it?

It is being used in a manner that reminds me of creationists' use of 'Darwinism'.

I'll ponder on this for a while...

I may have jumped too quickly.

I've heard 'scientism' be used in a perjorative fashion in the past.

Will continue to ponder...

I've looked at the wiki article briefly. I agree that the use of the term in a neutral sense describes my position. I reject its use in a perjorative sense, which is also discussed early on in the article.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 11:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFacWGBJ_cs

I promise to watch it when I get home. Can't open YouTubes here. :(

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 11:35 AM

Double post.

Cha-cha-cha.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 11:36 AM

It is being used in a manner that reminds me of creationists' use of 'Darwinism'.

I'll ponder on this for a while...

Also, calling something "scientism" doesn't actually addresses whether or not it's true. It's a lovely bit of dishonest rhetoric. That's kind of like one politician saying about another, "My opponent says that unemployment rates are way up - that's socialism!"

meg

25th April 2008, 11:37 AM

If I agree with or believe in scientism, does that make me a scientist?

A Christian Sceptic

25th April 2008, 11:37 AM

Sure it’s a supernatural claim, and of course it’s almost impossible to make a scientific study about it. But I would submit that that’s not the relevant question; the relevant question is: why should anyone take those claims seriously in the first place?

Well - if you thought Jesus might be important and it might be important to know some of the things taught and believed about him. That might one reason to consider them. If their true - what that would mean - might be another reason to consider them.

If you don't believe in God and if you don't even think you care about believing in Jesus then I don't know why anything there would be relevant.

Darat

25th April 2008, 11:40 AM

Fair enough. “If it can be defined” seems to be the problem thou. Have you stumbled upon any researchable suggestion which a scientific field has taken seriously?

Nope. :)

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 11:43 AM

Well - if you thought Jesus might be important and it might be important to know some of the things taught and believed about him. That might one reason to consider them. If their true - what that would mean - might be another reason to consider them.

If you don't believe in God and if you don't even think you care about believing in Jesus then I don't know why anything there would be relevant.

Excuse me, but you cannot argue that since it would be bad if something were false then it must be true. Reality doesn't work that way. It'd be a much better world if rape were physically impossible, and I'd like to live in a world where that is true, but it simply isn't that way.

You cannot start from the conclusion that Christianity is true just because it'd be nice if it were. If you could, I say it'd be nice if I were a millionaire exiled prince of Monaco, and every day is a holiday where people mail be candy.

Loss Leader

25th April 2008, 11:55 AM

You see no reason to to disbelieve that a child could be concieved without a sperm?

Once one believes in a God who can violate physical laws, there's no reason to disbelieve anything.

Civilized Worm

25th April 2008, 11:57 AM

OK, and why should one believe such a thing?

westprog

25th April 2008, 12:05 PM

Yet the parentage of Jesus is seemingly not treated as a scientific question by A Christian Skeptic, as he/she advocates Gould's NOMA principle.

If we found that Jesus did not have a father, there is absolutely no question that it would be held as evidence for divine power in the universe. I'm sure you would too.

And that, I'm afraid to say, is where the religous hypocrisy lies.

But we aren't talking about religious hypocrisy. We're talking about a specific invalid argument.

It's always possible for science to refute individual claims that encroach on it's field. That doesn't allow people to claim that science can overstep its boundaries.

lupus_in_fabula

25th April 2008, 12:08 PM

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 12:08 PM

But we aren't talking about religious hypocrisy. We're talking about a specific invalid argument.

It's always possible for science to refute individual claims that encroach on it's field. That doesn't allow people to claim that science can overstep its boundaries.

Science needs no excuse excuse to push its boundaries. That's what science is for. If you claim that science cannot determine whether or not something is true, than religion cannot either. If you discard science, you cannot tell which propositions are false.

lupus_in_fabula

25th April 2008, 12:32 PM

If you discard science, you cannot tell which propositions are false.

Neo says whoa! That’s actually a very good point… a very good point indeed, although, one should never say ‘indeed’ without striving for a Teal’c voice.

godless dave

25th April 2008, 12:35 PM

Science cannot disprove the existence of most gods.

But we can apply skepticism to claims that gods exist. The first thing we look at is the lack of evidence for the existence of said god or gods.

skeptical

25th April 2008, 12:55 PM

Well - if you thought Jesus might be important and it might be important to know some of the things taught and believed about him. That might one reason to consider them. If their true - what that would mean - might be another reason to consider them.

I just have to add something here. One could very well think that Jesus was important in some sense, and even believe it important to know some of the things taught and believed about him, without subscribing to any of the obviously fictional claims made about him.

Given that the earliest accounts of his life (Mark) do not speak of any miraculous parentage, given that claims of a virgin birth for religious leaders was ubiquitous in the ancient world, given the mistranslation the author of Matthew was using to reconstruct the virgin birth as "prophecy" in the Hebrew Bible, and given the conflicting birth stories in Mat and Luke, there is simply no credible nor _necessary_ reason to subscribe to a mythical account of Jesus' birth. It is no more necessary to believe that then it is to believe that all the graves in the city opened up and the dead walked around yet no other ancient historian noticed it.

To think otherwise is to believe that the creator of the Universe decided to reveal an important truth about a critical religious figure in the most unreliable fashion possible, and then peppered the surrounding circumstances with an abundance of disconfirming evidence, and yet expects reasonable people to believe it. That hardly seems like a good way to run a railroad.

ntropy

25th April 2008, 12:57 PM

Because religion doesn't have a methodology. It simply states "truth is here." This is why Jesus, for example, doesn't describe himself in the Gospels as a truth but "the truth." "Faith makes blessed," how does one insert skepticism here? There is a reason why priests have invented concepts such as "miracles," "sin," "revelations"--they deny cause and effect. Consider "revelation": knowledge that is not discovered by humanity but revealed. Who shall reveal it? A priest? Not even his ego would go that far. A priest needs a being that infallible, eternal--most important, one that cannot be scrutinized: he needs a God. How does one exercise skepticism in the presence of a God?

skeptical

25th April 2008, 01:03 PM

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 01:06 PM

By thinking that skepticism itself is a revelation? Just a thought. :)

No. Skepticism is a methodology. It's a step-by-step process which does something no other system of thought does - it starts with evidence and arrives at a conclusion later.

A Christian Sceptic

25th April 2008, 01:08 PM

I just have to add something here. One could very well think that Jesus was important in some sense, and even believe it important to know some of the things taught and believed about him, without subscribing to any of the obviously fictional claims made about him.

You are right. My reply wasn't about why you should accept anything, but was in response why someone might want to consider them. That's all. I'm sure there are lot's of reason in addition to those that I wrote to why someone might want to consider them.

Here's some other off-the-cuff reasons you might want to consider them:

1) To prove they are not real
2) To make someone doubt they are real
3) You find religions fascinating
4) You're doing a thesis on miracles on the ancient world

skeptical

25th April 2008, 01:14 PM

No. Skepticism is a methodology. It's a step-by-step process which does something no other system of thought does - it starts with evidence and arrives at a conclusion later.

I know, my comment was a bit tongue in cheek and perhaps a lame attempt at humor.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 01:15 PM

You are right. My reply wasn't about why you should accept anything, but was in response why someone might want to consider them. That's all. I'm sure there are lot's of reason in addition to those that I wrote to why someone might want to consider them.

Here's some other off-the-cuff reasons you might want to consider them:

1) To prove they are not real
2) To make someone doubt they are real
3) You find religions fascinating
4) You're doing a thesis on miracles on the ancient world

No one here has argued that one should not consider religion. I encourage it. The fastest way to get more people to become atheists is by encouraging them to consider their religion and all its vapid, cancerous claims.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 01:19 PM

I know, my comment was a bit tongue in cheek and perhaps a lame attempt at humor.

Mea culpa.

skeptical

25th April 2008, 01:29 PM

Mea culpa.

Nah, its my fault, I should try to be funnier. :D

Silentknight

25th April 2008, 01:49 PM

If that doesn't seem doubly odd to you, take off the religious blinders - it's genetically impossible for a human female to parthenogetically give birth to a human male, leaving aside the fact that humans don't undergo parthenogenesis.

The answer, obviously, is that Jesus was a she-male. Given that God was allegedly the parent of Jesus, and God must be androgynous if you believe the bible, then it stands to reason that Jesus inherited the trait.
Although the virgin birth claim is moot to begin with because "almah" means young woman whereas "bethulah" means virgin.

Also, to anyone claiming that one cannot disprove the existence of God, I would direct you to the following thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110059). QED :D

westprog

25th April 2008, 01:51 PM

Science can and will discover how concepts of morality and ethics have evolved. Science will be able to explain why some of these concepts have thrived and others have not.

Science will also be able to explain why specific people hold the moral and ethical beliefs that they hold, as well as why they are susceptible to some memes and not to others.

That is a totally different question. Explaining morality and explaining why people hold particular beliefs are very different things.

I obviously disagree with you on these issues.

In the future, please do not edit quoted material - you risk confusing things.

I think that the occasional cut is necessary. In this case, no change to the meaning was caused.

ETA: Your term 'scientism' is silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Loss Leader

25th April 2008, 01:58 PM

I believe God can do miracles and currently have no reason to believe the incarnation didn't happen the way traditionally it's held it happened.

You see no reason to to disbelieve that a child could be concieved without a sperm?
Once one believes in a God who can violate physical laws, there's no reason to disbelieve anything.
OK, and why should one believe such a thing?

I don't know why. All I know is that CS stated that he believed in the miracles described in the New Testament. Once he did so, there's really no reason to quiz him on each and every miracle.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2008, 02:07 PM

The answer, obviously, is that Jesus was a she-male. Given that God was allegedly the parent of Jesus, and God must be androgynous if you believe the bible, then it stands to reason that Jesus inherited the trait.

Given the Hebrew predeliction for male infant genital mutilation, Jesus having been secretly a woman would be highly inconsistent.

Although the virgin birth claim is moot to begin with because "almah" means young woman whereas "bethulah" means virgin.

Yes, but let's let them compound stupidities.

Loss Leader

25th April 2008, 04:30 PM

Given the Hebrew predeliction for male infant genital mutilation,

I male infant genital mutilated both of my sons. Then we had bagels. It was fun.

Complexity

25th April 2008, 04:34 PM

That is a totally different question. Explaining morality and explaining why people hold particular beliefs are very different things.

The question 'How did moral and ethical positions evolve?' has valid answers and science can discover them.

The question 'Why do people believe what they believe?' has valid answers and science can discover them.

The question 'Which moral and ethical positions are correct?' has no valid answers.

The question 'What should I believe?' has no valid answers.

I think that the occasional cut is necessary. In this case, no change to the meaning was caused.

I've made the request. We'll see if you'll honor it.

articulett

25th April 2008, 05:07 PM

Go Imaginal Disc... same ol' religious apologist rhetoric. Westprog disprove the Matrix theory or Fairies or Scientology...

Just because no one can prove your self important assertions false, doesn't mean that any person interested in what is true should take it seriously. I can't disprove Imaginal Disc's Lemur theory or the Mormon's Kolob... but that sure isn't a reason to "believe".

After a while all the woo and their apologist buddies sound the same to me...

Randi said that at TAM6... all the tricks and excuses and so forth are all the same... there's nothing new in the world of woo. Semantics, smoke and mirrors, demonizing the opponent, imagining yourself an expert on some "divine secret"... same ol'; same ol.

articulett

25th April 2008, 05:15 PM

The question 'How did moral and ethical positions evolve?' has valid answers and science can discover them.

The question 'Why do people believe what they believe?' has valid answers and science can discover them.

The question 'Which moral and ethical positions are correct?' has no valid answers.

The question 'What should I believe?' has no valid answers.

I've made the request. We'll see if you'll honor it.

It appears that westprog is standard variety self-important apologist. Maybe he and Claus can get into a conversation and leave the rest of us alone as they implode into a frenzy of pedantic digressions and straw man.

And scientism is a woo term to try to put evidence based knowledge on par with faith based knowledge...

He's also doing that goofy thing as if having 2 possibilities (Xenu or no Xenu) means that there's a 50/50 probability of each...

I think these arguments must work well on a brain made irrational by faith because they all seem to use the same word games and vapid nonsense. (I guess it's the best they have.)

articulett

25th April 2008, 05:33 PM

The answer, obviously, is that Jesus was a she-male. Given that God was allegedly the parent of Jesus, and God must be androgynous if you believe the bible, then it stands to reason that Jesus inherited the trait.
Although the virgin birth claim is moot to begin with because "almah" means young woman whereas "bethulah" means virgin.

Also, to anyone claiming that one cannot disprove the existence of God, I would direct you to the following thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110059). QED :D

Or this:

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

Of course, here's a nice compendium of semantic "proofs of god' using logical fallacies common to theists:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Silentknight

25th April 2008, 07:03 PM

I know. I already included a link to the latter list in the topic of mine that I linked to. :p

It's more fun to make up my own though.

Darth Rotor

25th April 2008, 07:12 PM

Gould is quite wrong.

As I said earlier, Jesus either had a father or he didn't.

As Dawkins noted, if we managed to dig up Jesus' remains and determine he did not have a father, could you possibly imagine Christians, or our own forum Christians declaring that this find means nothing to their faith? The notion is absurd.

As A Christian Skeptic adheres to Goulds words, I would like to ask him(her??):

Did Jesus have a father or not?
Walrus, what did you mean by "determining that he did not have a father?" Are you implying spontaneous gestation within Mary, or a confirmation of something other than a standard male seed as the trigger to his growing within Mary, that something being . . . . what? Evidence of the divine zygote?

I rather lost you there, and hope you'll amplify. (Am I on the right track?)

DR

Darth Rotor

25th April 2008, 07:18 PM

I disagree - reason can not advance farther than science.

Complexity, I think that's backwards.

Science, to advance, requires reasoning to ask the next question, take the next step, form the next hypothesis, design the next experiment, come to conclusions, test and or confirm them, and thus advance science to the next state.

It seems to me more correct to say "science can advance no farther than reason allows" but we may not be talking about the same thing.

DR

I Ratant

25th April 2008, 07:49 PM

:It seems to me more correct to say "science can advance no farther than reason allows" but we may not be talking about the same thing.
.
Giordano Bruno ran into the limits that reason would permit.

westprog

26th April 2008, 02:31 AM

westprog

26th April 2008, 02:40 AM

It appears that westprog is standard variety self-important apologist. Maybe he and Claus can get into a conversation and leave the rest of us alone as they implode into a frenzy of pedantic digressions and straw man.

Did I invite you in? You don't want to talk to me, don't talk to me. There's really no need to have a long discussion about not talking to me.

And scientism is a woo term to try to put evidence based knowledge on par with faith based knowledge...

Scientism is not nearly as much a threat to religion as it is to science.

He's also doing that goofy thing as if having 2 possibilities (Xenu or no Xenu) means that there's a 50/50 probability of each...

I forget just where I referred to probability. Could you quote that please?

I think these arguments must work well on a brain made irrational by faith because they all seem to use the same word games and vapid nonsense. (I guess it's the best they have.)

How can Articulett produce such endless streams of verbiage without constructing something like an argument? Calling people goofballs and irrational is not as impressive as actually demonstrating that they are irrational goofballs.

westprog

26th April 2008, 02:53 AM

Walrus, what did you mean by "determining that he did not have a father?" Are you implying spontaneous gestation within Mary, or a confirmation of something other than a standard male seed as the trigger to his growing within Mary, that something being . . . . what? Evidence of the divine zygote?

I rather lost you there, and hope you'll amplify. (Am I on the right track?)

DR

In any case, there are plenty of Christians for whom the virgin birth is of no great significance.

In any case, digging up Jesus would have far more significance than finding out his parentage.

ImaginalDisc

26th April 2008, 08:34 AM

In any case, there are plenty of Christians for whom the virgin birth is of no great significance.

Gee, the whole being the son of god thing is sort of central to Christianity.

In any case, digging up Jesus would have far more significance than finding out his parentage.

Yeah, it would prove he didn't ascend bodily into Heaven.

articulett

26th April 2008, 11:22 AM

Gee, the whole being the son of god thing is sort of central to Christianity.

If he existed, his Y chromosome would be of great interest to scientists. What does an almighty Y chromosome look like? (And if we are all gods children, then what makes Jesus so special?-- it seems like someone got some exalted DNA from somewhere, eh? You do have to wonder about a deity that impregnates a virgin and then tells her about it after the fact, though.)

JoeEllison

26th April 2008, 11:31 AM

I was going to reply to this (and many others along the same lines) on the "coddle" thread, but that seems to have run off in all directions, and I wanted to deal with this specific point.

Let's first consider how a skeptic should approach the specific claims of, say, homeopathy. What is his approach? How does he deal with the issue?

It's fairly obvious. He deals with the science. He examines the scientific theory behind homeopathy, and finds that it's gibberish. He then examines the experimental evidence, and finds that all the double blind tests fail. It's fairly straightforward.

How does a skeptic then deal with the claims of religion? Well, when it's a claim like "The Earth is six thousand years old and all species were created independently" he follows exactly the same strategy. The claim is in the realm of science, and it is rebutted scientifically.

But what about the claim that the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient being? How should that claim be dealt with? Let's go to the science. What do the textbooks say? Nothing. Shelf after shelf on physics and cosmology have nothing to say about God. No physicist has claimed to have demonstrated the non-existence of God. Many physicists don't believe that a God exists. However, many do, and they seem to be doing exactly the same physics. I don't think the same could be said for biologists who believe in homeopathy.

So the skeptic has to move to another section of the library altogether. He can look in Philosophy, and he'll find plenty of stuff there. Neitzche will tell him that God is dead. He can make the arguments accordingly.

But what about the atheists who claim that the arguments are the same? They claim that rather than advancing a philosophical point of view, they are arging scientifically? They are doing exactly what the creationists do - conflating religion and science in a way designed to cause confusion.

By your own argument, homeopathy is more legitimate than "God". At least the homeopaths pretend that their claims can be tested in a lab, and confirmed by evidence. Theists, on the other hand, can only make completely unfounded assertions, not even pretend to back up their claims, and stupidly say "prove me wrong" over and over until people give up trying to correct their fallacy... and then claim that as a victory of their fairy-tale worldview.

ImaginalDisc

26th April 2008, 11:39 AM

You do have to wonder about a deity that impregnates a virgin and then tells her about it after the fact, though.)

It's somewhat more disturbing when you consider the Catholic dogma that Mary was the Immaculate Conception - convinced without sin for the express purpose of later being the mother of Christ.

A god who manipulates a fetus just so that he can later impregnate her when she is a teenager without even asking her permission is. . .sick.

articulett

26th April 2008, 12:15 PM

I was raised Catholic... I remember asking what "round yon virgin" meant from Silent Night... and what did it mean: the "virgin" Mary. I was told it meant "pure".

And then later I figured out the sex stuff but I heard that Mary, herself, was immaculately conceived because something or other about original sin and yada, yada, yada. You're right. God is one sick bastard.

Killing your kid because someone else bit from the "tree of knowledge" and now there has to be a blood sacrifice because your plan was messed up? That test of Abraham where he asks him to kill Isaac? Stoning people? Foreskins of philistines? Killing fatted calves for the prodigal son? Plagues?

Religion never made any sense to me... even when I was young, guilt ridden, and gullible.

I was always much more moral than the invisible god I was supposed to believe in, it seems.

Complexity

26th April 2008, 12:40 PM

Complexity, I think that's backwards.

Science, to advance, requires reasoning to ask the next question, take the next step, form the next hypothesis, design the next experiment, come to conclusions, test and or confirm them, and thus advance science to the next state.

It seems to me more correct to say "science can advance no farther than reason allows" but we may not be talking about the same thing.

DR

Reason is one of the most important tools that science uses.

My remark was intended to contradict the suggestion that reason, being carried out apart from the context of science, can arrive at discoveries about reality that science can not address - that philosophy can achieve what science can not.

Science is how we learn about reality. Our best models of reality - our best understanding of how the world works and how it will work - are constructed through science.

Anything that we imagine or dream of, whether born of whimsy or years of careful reason, can be admitted to the collection of ideas that we hold to be 'true' only by being tested against the touchstone of science. Even then, its admission is provisional and it remains subject to retesting and reconsideration as long as we endure.

Reasoning, creative leaps, gut feelings, irrational associations, imagination - all can lead to ideas that can contribute to scientific advances and, thereby, improvements in our understanding of reality.

If they remain untested, however, if they are not subjected to the intense skeptical scrutiny and tested against our best understanding of reality, if they are not subjected to science, no claim regarding their truthfulness or accuracy should be made.

Complexity

26th April 2008, 12:49 PM

So presumably the question "should I shoot that guy next door playing his stereo too loud" has no valid answer?

No, it does not.

How you would answer that question is contingent upon the set of beliefs that you hold and the machinery for decision making that you happen to have installed. Those beliefs have nothing to do with what is true.

Your answer will not be founded upon moral absolutes, for there are none, but rather on received values and those that you've happened upon as you've gotten to this point in your life.

You may think that your beliefs are founded upon moral absolutes, but you'd be wrong.

Personally, I'm usually inclined to shoot the bastard, for I really don't like inconsiderate people, but I have yet to act on that impulse.

This is one reason I don't have a gun.

articulett

26th April 2008, 01:00 PM

Plus dead people stink, and who knows what your next new neighbor will be like, and there's those damn legal consequences.

(Would theists be raping and killing willy nilly without the invisible man in the sky watching them every second... maybe we ought to encourage their belief? Maybe theists really do need to believe in god to be moral... the rest of us can manage fine without the delusion-- heck, even our pets can.)

meg

26th April 2008, 02:12 PM

Reason is one of the most important tools that science uses.

My remark was intended to contradict the suggestion that reason, being carried out apart from the context of science, can arrive at discoveries about reality that science can not address - that philosophy can achieve what science can not.

Science is how we learn about reality. Our best models of reality - our best understanding of how the world works and how it will work - are constructed through science.

Anything that we imagine or dream of, whether born of whimsy or years of careful reason, can be admitted to the collection of ideas that we hold to be 'true' only by being tested against the touchstone of science. Even then, its admission is provisional and it remains subject to retesting and reconsideration as long as we endure.

Reasoning, creative leaps, gut feelings, irrational associations, imagination - all can lead to ideas that can contribute to scientific advances and, thereby, improvements in our understanding of reality.

If they remain untested, however, if they are not subjected to the intense skeptical scrutiny and tested against our best understanding of reality, if they are not subjected to science, no claim regarding their truthfulness or accuracy should be made.

Then I think you misunderstood what I was saying. What I said was "Science cannot determine a person's morality or ethics, but reason can,- or should."

One's morality and ethics are not only a reflection of how you think the world works, but how you think you should behave in it, something that I don't think science will ever be able to tell us.

While we can use science to help us achieve our goals, for instance to figure out how to feed the world, we cannot use it to decide whether we should feed everyone. We have to use reason for that.

westprog

26th April 2008, 02:34 PM

Gee, the whole being the son of god thing is sort of central to Christianity.

Which is something that can't be determined by genetic testing.

Yeah, it would prove he didn't ascend bodily into Heaven.

Which again is a doctrinal detail.

Complexity

26th April 2008, 02:43 PM

Then I think you misunderstood what I was saying. What I said was "Science cannot determine a person's morality or ethics, but reason can,- or should."

One's morality and ethics are not only a reflection of how you think the world works, but how you think you should behave in it, something that I don't think science will ever be able to tell us.

While we can use science to help us achieve our goals, for instance to figure out how to feed the world, we cannot use it to decide whether we should feed everyone. We have to use reason for that.

My point is that questions like 'should we feed everyone' do not have any valid answers. Reason all you like, your reasoning is not well-founded and your conclusions will be without value.

I have opinions on many of these questions, and I try to act according to those opinions, but I also try to remember that my opinions are just that - opinions, rather than truth.

I do the best I can with what I've got.

meg

26th April 2008, 03:19 PM

I think we agree more than we disagree, here, really.

I think while questions like 'should we feed everyone' might not have a yes or no "proven" answer, there are many valid answers based on reasoning, stemming from tentatively accepted moral theories and philosophies.

For instance, if we accept the notion that every human is entitled to a fundamental right to life, we may feel compelled to act when we see a nation is starving.

If, on the other hand, we have strong belief in self-determination, we might not feel a need to interfere.

The reality, for most of us, is somewhere in between.

The point I was trying to make is that I believe it is far better to acknowledge (and even acclaim, perhaps) our own reasoning in determination of our moral philosophies, which keeps them open to criticism and change, than it is to pretend (as some here do) that our morals have been determined by some other higher power, which leaves them static and less able to change to solve new problems we encounter in our society.

When faced with a new situation in society, I have far more confidence in someone who will study the problem, think through the possible consequences and risks, and attempt to justify their beliefs about a possible solution than I do in someone who, when faced with a dilemma, just says "I prayed about it, and god said 'no'".

I Ratant

26th April 2008, 03:26 PM

:My remark was intended to contradict the suggestion that reason, being carried out apart from the context of science, can arrive at discoveries about reality that science can not address - that philosophy can achieve what science can not.
.
Ask Aristotle how many teeth Mrs. Aristotle has. He'd say "Fewer than I do."
He reasoned it out. Women are inferior in every way to men, ergo, fewer teeth.
Reality says... they have the same number. Open wide, start at the right bottom....
But that was too messy for A. who wasn't in to actually verifying things like that.

westprog

26th April 2008, 03:30 PM

By your own argument, homeopathy is more legitimate than "God". At least the homeopaths pretend that their claims can be tested in a lab, and confirmed by evidence. Theists, on the other hand, can only make completely unfounded assertions, not even pretend to back up their claims, and stupidly say "prove me wrong" over and over until people give up trying to correct their fallacy... and then claim that as a victory of their fairy-tale worldview.

So a belief that has been disproven is superior to a belief that is not capable of proof or disproof? Cool.

westprog

26th April 2008, 03:35 PM

No, it does not.

How you would answer that question is contingent upon the set of beliefs that you hold and the machinery for decision making that you happen to have installed. Those beliefs have nothing to do with what is true.

Your answer will not be founded upon moral absolutes, for there are none, but rather on received values and those that you've happened upon as you've gotten to this point in your life.

You may think that your beliefs are founded upon moral absolutes, but you'd be wrong.

Personally, I'm usually inclined to shoot the bastard, for I really don't like inconsiderate people, but I have yet to act on that impulse.

This is one reason I don't have a gun.

This is an interesting post, and I will be pursuing the question. Complexity has taken materialism to its logical conclusion - acts have no objective significance. The idea that it is wrong to shoot your neighbour is meaningless.

Interestingly, not all the atheists posting here seem to agree with this. I'm not sure why not. No doubt they can tell us.

I can turn
And walk away
Or I can fire the gun
Staring at the sky
Staring at the sun
Whichever I chose
It amounts to the same

Absolutely nothing

westprog

26th April 2008, 03:38 PM

meg

26th April 2008, 03:52 PM

How meaningful are matter and energy to you?

JoeEllison

26th April 2008, 04:01 PM

Well, here's what I believe - as I haven't stated it before. I believe that right and wrong are as meaningfull as matter and energy. If you don't believe this - and clearly some of the posters don't - then on what are your moral philosophies based?

And if you do believe it - where do those moral values come from?

Oh, I know the answer to this one!! Moral values come from an invisible sky daddy who no one has ever seen, except for sheepherders 3-4000 years ago, and is really real, unlike the invisible sky daddies of all the other ignorant tribes of ancient people!

Boy, when you put it that way... theists are sort of willfully stupid when it comes to religion. GIANT blind spot!

JoeEllison

26th April 2008, 04:07 PM

Complexity has taken materialism to its logical conclusion - acts have no objective significance. The idea that it is wrong to shoot your neighbour is meaningless.
The conclusion you've come to is stupid, and also dangerously close to dishonest. "Lack of objective significance" is not the same as "meaningless". When you start actually thinking about things with a little objectivity yourself, you might have a chance of understanding what people say to you.

Complexity

26th April 2008, 04:15 PM

I think we agree more than we disagree, here, really.

I think we do agree on a lot.

I think while questions like 'should we feed everyone' might not have a yes or no "proven" answer, there are many valid answers based on reasoning, stemming from tentatively accepted moral theories and philosophies.

Here I must disagree. It is precisely because they are based upon moral theories and philosophies that can have no foundation that they do not have valid answers - answers to these questions are contingent on assumptions that are not well founded.

Your reasoning flows like this: 'If X and Y are true, then Z is true.' Your statement may even be a true one. However, since X and Y can not be shown to be true, your statement is of limited use.

What you can do is say that you believe that X and Y are true, that you are going to act as though X and Y are true, and that you are going to tentatively admit Z to the things that you believe and will act upon.

This is an honest statement - you state your beliefs and your intent to act upon those beliefs.

Do not go beyond that, though - don't say that X and Y are true, don't expect anyone else to agree with your beliefs, and always be open to the possibility that your beliefs are wrong.

In short, there are no valid answers to these questions, there are only answers that are contingent upon your beliefs.

For instance, if we accept the notion that every human is entitled to a fundamental right to life, we may feel compelled to act when we see a nation is starving.

If, on the other hand, we have strong belief in self-determination, we might not feel a need to interfere.

The reality, for most of us, is somewhere in between.

You are making my point for me - "if we accept the notion...", "If, on the other hand, we have a strong belief in...".

The key, I think, is trying to understand the lack of foundation in our values judgements and being humble and open to the possibility that we are wrong.

The point I was trying to make is that I believe it is far better to acknowledge (and even acclaim, perhaps) our own reasoning in determination of our moral philosophies, which keeps them open to criticism and change, than it is to pretend (as some here do) that our morals have been determined by some other higher power, which leaves them static and less able to change to solve new problems we encounter in our society.

I absolutely agree with this statement.

When faced with a new situation in society, I have far more confidence in someone who will study the problem, think through the possible consequences and risks, and attempt to justify their beliefs about a possible solution than I do in someone who, when faced with a dilemma, just says "I prayed about it, and god said 'no'".

I absolutely agree with this statement.

I love what I understand of mathematics.

One of the things that I love about mathematics is the clarity which it demands.

There is no uncontingent truth in mathematics - there is nothing in mathematics that is true without requiring that other things be true.

Mathematics is the study of consequences. These consequences flow from the asserted core of a system - a set of statements that are assumed to be true. Without these axioms, there is no system, and there are no consequences.

Clarity and success in mathematics requires the clear identification and understanding of what is given, what is assumed to be true.

I think that the same is true with the rest of life. It is important to understand the assumptions that underlie our systems of thought, especially our moral and ethical systems, and to understand that their fruits can be no better than their roots.

Complexity

26th April 2008, 04:36 PM

This is an interesting post, and I will be pursuing the question. Complexity has taken materialism to its logical conclusion - acts have no objective significance. The idea that it is wrong to shoot your neighbour is meaningless.

As usual, we don't agree upon much.

I think that acts are quite significant - they are quite real.

The idea that it is wrong to shoot your neighbor is not meaningless.

The question 'Is it wrong to shoot my neighbor?' does not have a valid answer, an answer that is contingent only upon things that have a truth value, things that are based in reality.

The ideas of right and wrong are an animal construct that humans have inherited and elaborated upon. They have cultural significance and may, in some limited sense, be hardwired into our brains. I suspect that these ideas, and which things fall into either category, are transmitted much more through culture than through genes.

The notions of what falls into the categories of right and wrong have evolved over time and will continue to do so. Science will be able to investigate this aspect of genetic and memetic evolution just as it can every other aspect of genetic and memetic evolution.

Whether one should shoot one's neighbor, and under which circumstances, has practical consequences, may be subject to genetic predisposition, and certainly is subject to cultural influences to which an individual may be susceptible.

It is not meaningless.

It is, however, not well founded and is, in the end, a matter of opinion that should in no way be regarded as the result of sound reasoning from unassailable foundations.

Interestingly, not all the atheists posting here seem to agree with this. I'm not sure why not. No doubt they can tell us.

Atheists don't believe in a god or gods - that is all that we need have in common.

Beth

26th April 2008, 04:46 PM

An excellent post meg. Thank you.

When faced with a new situation in society, I have far more confidence in someone who will study the problem, think through the possible consequences and risks, and attempt to justify their beliefs about a possible solution than I do in someone who, when faced with a dilemma, just says "I prayed about it, and god said 'no'".

On the other hand, often people must make decisions on which their future depends without access to further knowledge. For example: Should girl A marry boy B or boy C or stay single for a while longer? She can't go to the library and check out a book on which decision will work out best for her. The best she can do is reflect on her knowledge of herself and the other people in her life. Prayer is a wonderful way to meditate and reflect on the problem. It allows you to talk it over between the various voices in your head and decide which path to take.

Don't dismiss prayers just because god doesn't actually intervene. Prayer has it's benefits without any supernatural results.

ImaginalDisc

26th April 2008, 09:18 PM

Don't dismiss prayers just because god doesn't actually intervene. Prayer has it's benefits without any supernatural results.

Not on any part out of the universe outside of the person's head it doesn't. And, if you actually do derive some strange benefit from engaging in a lie, that's quite sad.

articulett

26th April 2008, 09:38 PM

Complexity, I love your new title...

Complexity

26th April 2008, 10:42 PM

Complexity, I love your new title...

I've had it for a while. Glad you like it.

:)

articulett

26th April 2008, 11:42 PM

I've had it for a while. Glad you like it.

:)

Now that you mention it, I think I may have read it before, but failed to appreciate it fully amidst others distractions...

or perhaps I was just distracted by the handsome Alan Turing avatar.

I can't imagine what you might be whispering to woos, but I'm sure it makes them paranoid even if it doesn't "tame" them.

Mobyseven

26th April 2008, 11:43 PM

Lets run through the list, shall we?

Misunderstanding the burden of proof.
Special pleading fallacy.
Strawman fallacy.
Claim that a belief is fine and dandy because it has no evidence to support it.

Yep, it ticks all the boxes! I proclaim the OP a...

http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2008/03/funny-pictures-bird-window-fail.jpg

Mobyseven

27th April 2008, 12:31 AM

So presumably the question "should I shoot that guy next door playing his stereo too loud" has no valid answer?

Bingo. The answer to that question may well differ if evaluated in a number of different moral systems. Which moral decision we use is, for all intents and purposes, arbitrary: If we had a system that told us which moral system we should use, then that system would itself be a moral system, and we would be begging the question.

In reality, the moral systems that people adopt are based around what they value: Themselves; Society as a whole; Pleasure; Art, and so on. People who have moral systems that clash with society as a whole tend to be selected out - they wind up in jail, or ostracised by society. It may well be that we can evaluate different moral systems to determine which system produces the best functioning society (ironically, such a thing would be studied via the scientific method), but even if we were to determine what the 'best' moral system is, the decision to adopt it would still be essentially arbitrary.

---------------------

PS: Scientism is still a silly word. I don't care if it has a wikipedia page.Ayurvedic medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurvedic_Medicine) has a wikipedia page, but that doesn't stop it from being silly.

articulett

27th April 2008, 02:46 AM

Actually scientists have tested it out... it's called game theory... it works in other social animals besides humans... what behavior maximizes the outcome for the most players?-- start out kind/trusting... and then respond in "tat for tat" fashion to ensure cooperation and trust and to punish cheaters (social shunning, etc.) basic "reciprocity"-- it's a very simple algorithm and we even understand some of the feedback loops involved... it works really great for trade and things like E-bay and netiquette... it's a nice easy algorithm...

Whether in games like the "prisoner's dilemma" or life... this is the "winningest" strategy for the most people... those who have this basic strategy are more likely to pass on genes encoding for this basic strategy. Sure, we codify it and put it into words and stories and religions and laws-- but it has evolved in other species too without the language to tell themselves why they are behaving as they do.

Would theists be killing people willy nilly if not for the invisible spy in the sky? Are they serious when they posit this scenario? They refrain from killing people and doing harm because they are trying to win heaven bonus points or stay our of hell or please the invisible man??? I hope that isn't true. We nonbelievers manage all that morality without the threats or promises. I think they really believe that they get their morality from god-- they are taught that everything good comes from god and so they get their thinking all twisted... but that makes them rather immoral from my perspective... or rather the have little kid morality... basic Skinner responses. "I get presents when I'm good; and punishment when I'm bad."

I am always so embarrassed when theists talk this way. I hope one day they become atheists and realize how ... childish they sounded and how bizarrely they viewed atheism.

"It's wrong to kill people because god said so." Isn't that what they are saying?

Why do even small kids know not to pull cat's tails even though god never mentions such in the bible? Or is god whispering in kids' ears with Satan on the other shoulder like in the cartoons?

Gee, westprog, how do you get your engrams cleared when you aren't a Scientologist?-- Don't you know you'd be a lot more happy and successful like Tom Cruise? Doesn't your lack of belief in Scientology explain the problems of your mind and your low level of operating thetan? Do you think you sound more logical than that?

If they could only hear how they sound-- I suspect they could "hear" the density, humor, and irony, if it was being written from a woo they didn't subscribe to. But when it comes to their sacred woo, they are blind.

meg

27th April 2008, 07:19 AM

Why do even small kids know not to pull cat's tails even though god never mentions such in the bible? Or is god whispering in kids' ears with Satan on the other shoulder like in the cartoons?

You must not have kids.

Sorry, articulett. I think you should drop that particular argument. That one is just plain false.

Loved the rest of the post though :)

UnrepentantSinner

27th April 2008, 07:41 AM

Stout

27th April 2008, 07:49 AM

Of course there's a correct answer to the question "can/should i shoot my neighbour if he annoys me?"...the answer is NO!

I'm basing this opinion on self interest ( as was mentioned above ) because i no more want my neighbour to shoot me if I annoy him, and let's face it, sometimes I can be annoying:D.

I've never really had a problem with my being an atheist and morality. I'm not even fussed about a lot of Christian moral ideals. For instance, the ten commandments make sense on a *let's organise a group of people into a society where we can all be productive and lead reasonable lives* kind of way, likewise, the seven deadly sins ( excepting the pride one here, because it's strictly a faith issue ) suggest a recipe for clean living.

Having said that, though, I'm a pretty boring guy, who's never really run afoul of the Christian moral ideals. I can covet my neighbours wife, but i have the sense not to act on it. Not because I fear my neighbour will shoot me, or I'll burn in hell, but because, I don't expect my neighbour to covet my wife and act on it either.

If i was gay I'd sure have a reason to be anti-Christian, likewise if I were raised in an oppressive Christian household, I may formulate reasons to reject "the teachings" on a wholesale basis.

The thing I have the most trouble with is Christians demanding respect for their silly beliefs. A few weeks ago, over on another forum, I noticed a Christian "taking offense" at a few posts other posters had made regarding God. One was a simple cartoon of God sitting in front of a computer, designing the world. This, the Christian found "rude".

The second was a teenager relating "some story" about how the universe was created by God sitting around bored and lonely, masturbation, and his resulting ejaculate created what we see as the universe. The Christian...freaked. I found this odd seeing as how the masturbation story was presented as being a native American story ( Google left me high and dry on this one ) and if that were true, then obviously it's a different "God" ie, not the Christian one, being referred to here.

I posted something about the Catholic church ( this Christian is a Catholic ) being unable to take a firm stance regarding creation/evolution, IIRC i called it a "have your cake and eat it too" philosophy. The Christian went ballistic, accusing me of defamation...yadayada and demanded that I never speak to her again.

Oh well.

I really don't have any defense against this sort of behaviour. Other than condescension and given the particular nature of that forum, I thought it best to just let it go, giving the Christian the impression that she "won" and her morals and views are some how more important ( sacred ) than mine.

Interestingly, this same poster was raving about how the movie Boondock Saints was a "good" movie because "it brought people together" Yikes....

For those of you who haven't seen the movie, the basic premise is...a few brothers get drunk, thrown in jail, where they meet "God" who gives them special permission to be vigilantes. Hey....murder's alright, when God says so.

So in certain circumstances I'll give the skeptic thing a rest ( in the name of peace ) and let the believers have their say, all the while, congratulating myself on my restraint :)

articulett

27th April 2008, 08:47 AM

You must not have kids.

Sorry, articulett. I think you should drop that particular argument. That one is just plain false.

Loved the rest of the post though :)

I have one ( a kid) he learned through "natural consequence" and was able to extrapolate to other sentient beings... you don't do things that can hurt other things... some hurt you back... eventually empathy kicks in. My son is fantastic with animals; it's a joy for me that he adores them as I do. But even toddlers show empathy... mirror neurons... they get upset when others are upset... the show delight when other giggle... I believe my son at 3 told me that the cat was his sister... and then later decided he might marry her. By 4 he was into humans, but found it great fun to see how assorted pets reacted to bows from presents stuck on them. Much hilarity ensued. Predictions were made based on species and body part adorned.
We felt slightly guilty, but then decided that our pets should earn their keep by amusing us. They have been stellar at the task, I might add.

We evolved to "feel" what is going on in the creatures around us... it's why we like drama and movies and stories... Moral choices such as those explored by Marc Hauser (google if you are interested) tend to be the same across cultures and religions and non religion... we have an aversion to killing other people... religion or seeing others as evil can over ride this instinct. Seeing people as "other" allows people to do harm without guilt. Also, there's an area of the brain that can be damaged so that people don't have these feelings or instincts associated with conscience--

What we think of as good and bad tend to be decisions made in the same part of our brain as emotions for joy and revulsion...

The stirrings of morality emerge early in childhood. Toddlers spontaneously offer toys and help to others and try to comfort people they see in distress. And according to the psychologists Elliot Turiel and Judith Smetana, preschoolers have an inkling of the difference between societal conventions and moral principles. Four-year-olds say that it is not O.K. to wear pajamas to school (a convention) and also not O.K. to hit a little girl for no reason (a moral principle). But when asked whether these actions would be O.K. if the teacher allowed them, most of the children said that wearing pajamas would now be fine but that hitting a little girl would still not be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
reprinted here: http://www.infidelguy.com/article191.html

The argument isn't false... it's backed up by lots of evidence... morality evolves-- culture merely hones and codifies it... just like language. We evolve to communicate... the language we speak is programmed by culture and evolves just like everything else.

We evolved to fit into our culture; religion has evolved to hijack that programming the way a venereal disease has hijacked the human sex drive to spread itself as far as I'm concerned.

westprog

27th April 2008, 09:49 AM

Complexity

27th April 2008, 09:55 AM

westprog - You deliberately misrepresent and warp what people say.

I suppose you do believe the end justifies the means.

Yuck.

articulett

27th April 2008, 10:06 AM

westprog - You deliberately misrepresent and warp what people say.

I suppose you do believe the end justifies the means.

Yuck.

'Tis why the ignore button is such a handle little tool.

I Ratant

27th April 2008, 11:02 AM

westprog - You deliberately misrepresent and warp what people say.

I suppose you do believe the end justifies the means.

...

Quite Marxian, that... :)

slingblade

27th April 2008, 11:03 AM

Articulett seems to regard not injuring other people because it's a bad strategy as being a superior reason to not injuring other people because it's wrong. I wonder if I could persuade her to enlarge on that.

I had this conversation, or one like it, when my children were approaching their teen years. At the time, all of us were Christians.

They were both rapidly approaching the age when they'd start wanting to have sex, so we discussed it, among other things. It was, as I recall, a fairly long discussion. I'll condense and paraphrase.

I told them that, as Christians, we believed sexual intercourse outside of marriage was wrong. I asked them why they thought that might be so.

I was told: because God says so; because it's in the bible; because it's a sin.

Nothing else? I asked. I received blank looks for a moment, until one of them suggested: because you might get the girl pregnant. Very good. Anything else? Oh, one said: you might get a disease, like AIDS. That's true. What else?

We went on in this vein for a time, discussing all the things that could go wrong in any relationship, and what adding sex to that mix could do. By the end of it, they both understood that there were actually some pretty sound reasons for waiting a while to start having sex. That the sole reason wasn't just because their religion said it was "a sin."

The conversation then took that turn: is something wrong just because someone says it's a sin? Not just premarital sex, but anything they thought of as being a sin. Did it also have legitimate reasons that made it a bad idea, no matter what it was?

At the end of that, they understood that saying "this act is wrong, because it's a sin," was a pretty stupid reason. They should be thinking in opposite terms: "this act is a sin, because it's wrong." We defined "wrong" as being words and deeds that could hurt people, including yourself.

In the end, we concluded that "right and wrong" did not depend on what the bible or religion taught you. It depended on reason and empathy.

So, if someone says to you, "Don't do that; it's wrong," respond to them with "Why is it wrong?" And if they come back with "Because it's a sin," you'll know you are talking to someone who doesn't know how to use the brains god supposedly gave him.

My sons, now grown, have better than average moral compasses. One is agnostic, and one is Christian. And just so you know, we all get along just fine, thanks. :D

Beth

27th April 2008, 11:04 AM

And of course, game theory works best for you when you are the only person to break the kind and trusting method.

Would athiests be killing people willy nilly if a theory could be found that showed it was a winning strategy? Because sometimes it has been a winning strategy.

Clearly Articulett knows better than I do why I do things - but I think that I avoid doing bad things because they are actually wrong. Really wrong, not a bad strategy. Not because God will punish me - because, after all, I could always repent later, right?

Articulett seems to regard not injuring other people because it's a bad strategy as being a superior reason to not injuring other people because it's wrong. I wonder if I could persuade her to enlarge on that.

If she sees it, I doubt you could prevent her from posting a long diatribe about how stupid people are if they believe that god might possibly exist. Of course, it will only tangentially touch upon the subject you requested. I was going to quote this so she'd see it, but then I remembered she has me on ignore too so it won't help you. So I'll just take this opportunity to thank you for a great series of posts and threads. I'm quite enjoying reading through them. Thanks and keep em up please.

westprog

27th April 2008, 11:15 AM

westprog - You deliberately misrepresent and warp what people say.

I suppose you do believe the end justifies the means.

Yuck.

No, Compo, I'm trying to tease out exactly what you think, and getting you to address the implications of what you say. And if you want to qualify an earlier observation, I won't keep quoting your previous position back at you, I'll accept your new position and let you argue that. And if you change your mind, I'll take that as a sign of maturity, not something to jeer about. Because that is how adults engage in intellectual dispute.

Or I might just post a big picture of a monkey. Depends how I'm feeling.

Do not change someone's username. Stick to the argument.

westprog

27th April 2008, 11:18 AM

Of course there's a correct answer to the question "can/should i shoot my neighbour if he annoys me?"...the answer is NO!

I'm basing this opinion on self interest

Which is a clear and reasonable answer.

articulett

27th April 2008, 11:43 AM

What slingblade said.

I don't know why I don't injure people or why I give blood and care for animals and people-- it makes me feel good when I'm good to others and I hurt if I hurt someone. I never needed religion to tell me not to hurt people any more than my dog needs religion not to hurt me or others. Are theists running around with impulses to do cruel things, but then they stop because it's a sin? If so, I don't think this method is working very well--otherwise we wouldn't need jails nor would there be pedophiliac priests. I think we can control our actions and instincts via reason... but even without reasoning it appears that we are hard wired to be moral-- at least I am. I didn't need to "learn" empathy... I can't help but have it. I don't think we choose our feelings-- but our feelings help us choose our actions and most people feel good in being neighborly to their neighbors and it appears to be the best way to get neighborly behavior in return-- you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours. It's a nice feedback loop.

Cooperation works better than competition in most cases-- both in families and societies and across borders. Does Westprog avoid shooting his neighbor because it's a "sin"? Is there no other reason he has for behaving? That is terribly sad, isn't it? I've never wanted to kill, rape, or pillage... if I was a thief or a liar or a cheater... I would have to live knowing that about myself... and wonder about that it everyone. I don't see the "benefits" to myself or anyone for illegal behavior or treating people in ways I would not want to be treated. I value being a role model to others to further their knowledge and their development and happiness. I never understood how god was supposed to fit into all this or how the hell you were supposed to know what his rubric was given the bizarre discrepancy between faiths and the glaring hypocrisy in many of the faithful.

I think by 14 I had figured out that the faithful only seem to be more moral in their head...it didn't translate to the reality I observed. There were plenty of great non religious people; and I didn't find most religious people as "moral" as they saw themselves.

Regarding teen sex... it's my experience that the educated kids have far fewer abortions and teen pregnancies than their scientifically ignorant counterparts. And statistics bear out my observations.

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Complexity

27th April 2008, 11:51 AM

No, Compo, I'm trying to tease out exactly what you think, and getting you to address the implications of what you say.

Oh, my - you're not nearly up to that task.

The only reason that you weren't put on ignore before now is that, according to the settings I've selected, all threads that you started disappear once I do.

I was hoping something interesting might happen in this thread. For me, it's run its course.

I've said what I wanted to say.

Plonk.

westprog

27th April 2008, 01:58 PM

Bingo. The answer to that question may well differ if evaluated in a number of different moral systems. Which moral decision we use is, for all intents and purposes, arbitrary: If we had a system that told us which moral system we should use, then that system would itself be a moral system, and we would be begging the question.

In reality, the moral systems that people adopt are based around what they value: Themselves; Society as a whole; Pleasure; Art, and so on. People who have moral systems that clash with society as a whole tend to be selected out - they wind up in jail, or ostracised by society. It may well be that we can evaluate different moral systems to determine which system produces the best functioning society (ironically, such a thing would be studied via the scientific method), but even if we were to determine what the 'best' moral system is, the decision to adopt it would still be essentially arbitrary.

Then I presume that you would agree that anyone calling any action right or wrong is as deluded as a theist. The most they can do is to promote certain shared values, not as an absolute, but as a convenient modus vivendi.

These truths are not self-evident. There are no universal human rights.

PS: Scientism is still a silly word. I don't care if it has a wikipedia page.Ayurvedic medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurvedic_Medicine) has a wikipedia page, but that doesn't stop it from being silly.

I think it's a convenient label.

westprog

27th April 2008, 02:01 PM

Oh, my - you're not nearly up to that task.

No, Comps, it's not up to me to show exactly what you believe. It's up to you.

The only reason that you weren't put on ignore before now is that, according to the settings I've selected, all threads that you started disappear once I do.

There's solipsism for you.

I was hoping something interesting might happen in this thread. For me, it's run its course.

I've said what I wanted to say.

Plonk.

Declare victory and withdraw. I had hoped that a skeptical scrutiny of beliefs might be possible but apparently not.

JoeEllison

27th April 2008, 02:02 PM

I think it's a convenient label.

I'm sure you do... having a convenient label for the falsehoods you prefer over reality must simplify your life immensely.

westprog

27th April 2008, 02:05 PM

Who is this mythical "they" to which the OP refers to because while I wish some of my more militant fellow atheists would give religious skeptics a confrontational break on the religion issue if they're not raving fundy lunatics.. it's a myth that skepticism "exempts" religion from skeptical scrutiny.

I'm the OP, but the title of the thread is a quote from another thread. I wanted to discuss certain issues that arose - in particular, whether applying the same criteria for untestable as to testable claims is justifiable.

westprog

27th April 2008, 02:06 PM

I'm sure you do... having a convenient label for the falsehoods you prefer over reality must simplify your life immensely.

Having a label which refers to something having certain properties is what we call language. While it necessarily involves certain simplifications, it remains a useful tool.

westprog

27th April 2008, 02:10 PM

If she sees it, I doubt you could prevent her from posting a long diatribe about how stupid people are if they believe that god might possibly exist. Of course, it will only tangentially touch upon the subject you requested. I was going to quote this so she'd see it, but then I remembered she has me on ignore too so it won't help you. So I'll just take this opportunity to thank you for a great series of posts and threads. I'm quite enjoying reading through them. Thanks and keep em up please.

The important point is that I'm actually interested in investigating what people actually believe, and why. I think it's fair enough to ask how religious people come by their beliefs. It's also fair to subject unreligious people to the same scrutiny. Some find it more painful than others.

articulett

27th April 2008, 02:11 PM

I'm sure you do... having a convenient label for the falsehoods you prefer over reality must simplify your life immensely.

simplified life, simplified morality-- perfect for simple minds.

GeeMack

27th April 2008, 02:30 PM

On the other hand, often people must make decisions on which their future depends without access to further knowledge. For example: Should girl A marry boy B or boy C or stay single for a while longer? She can't go to the library and check out a book on which decision will work out best for her. The best she can do is reflect on her knowledge of herself and the other people in her life. Prayer is a wonderful way to meditate and reflect on the problem. It allows you to talk it over between the various voices in your head and decide which path to take.

Most of us don't hear voices in our heads. And those who do, at least those who are still somewhat lucid, recognize the voices as a symptom of mental illness, poisoning, or other cognitive anomaly.

Don't dismiss prayers just because god doesn't actually intervene. Prayer has it's benefits without any supernatural results.

Ugh, well, not so much for those who aren't victims of schizophrenia or similar lack of grip on reality. But whatever it takes to keep you stable, Beth. :)

articulett

27th April 2008, 03:02 PM

Don't dismiss rational decision making over magical thinking when the option is available:

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon439.htm

Magical thinking makes you believe you are having your choices influenced by god or other magical sources... it does not make any god real or any god actually influence your choices... it makes you come to a decision in the way most people come to decisions while imagining god gave you guidance or sent you a sign.

Stout

27th April 2008, 04:34 PM

Don't dismiss prayers just because god doesn't actually intervene. Prayer has it's benefits without any supernatural results.

Might you be comparing prayer to meditation here ?

I'm not trying to disagree because I neither pray nor meditate but in a conversation with a Buddhist about aspects of "religion" the topic of "sitting quietly" came up and we both were speculation whether meditation and prayer provided similar opportunities for self reflection.

Beth

27th April 2008, 06:54 PM

Might you be comparing prayer to meditation here ? Indeed I am. That's my point.

I'm not trying to disagree because I neither pray nor meditate but in a conversation with a Buddhist about aspects of "religion" the topic of "sitting quietly" came up and we both were speculation whether meditation and prayer provided similar opportunities for self reflection. They are not exactly the same, but I think they provide similar opportunities for the mind to quiet itself and allow one's unconscious inclinations to percolate up into the conscious mind. I have find both helpful in that regard, but I didn't pray near as often after I learned some basic meditation techniques. Still, when dealing with an emotional situation, I prefer prayer because that's what I was taught to do as a child. Not because I think some supernatural god will make everything all right, but because I find the act of prayer calming.

UnrepentantSinner

27th April 2008, 07:38 PM

I'm the OP, but the title of the thread is a quote from another thread. I wanted to discuss certain issues that arose - in particular, whether applying the same criteria for untestable as to testable claims is justifiable.

Sorry for not referencing you directly as I was crunched for time/bandwidth this morning. :)

And reading your clarification, here's my take on it. General religious claims cannot be tested by the scientific method, but specific religious claims and most supernatural claims (ghosts, which I don't consider a religious claim for example) can be tested. I don't consider the claim that God created the Earth or that the Himilayas are Shiva's braided hair to be testable within the scientific method. That the Earth and all life on it was spontaneously created 6,000 years ago or that a particular child is the reincarnation of a deceased person is definately testible and falsifiable.

I don't believe the metaphysical claims about God or Shiva mentioned above, but I cannot falsify them with the scientific method.

articulett

27th April 2008, 07:52 PM

If someone claims that something exists...

And that "something" is indistinguishable from the nonexistance of that something... or a delusion of that "something", a consistent skeptic assumes nonexistence until or unless evidence warrants belief.

Otherwise all invisible entities mythological beings and unprovable notions are on the table as far as likelihood goes... and you are just using confirmation bias to prop up the magic you've been indoctrinated to believe in.

Mobyseven

27th April 2008, 07:56 PM

And of course, game theory works best for you when you are the only person to break the kind and trusting method.

Said the person who quite clearly has no understanding of game theory. 'Tit for tat' isn't just a cute name, you know.

Then I presume that you would agree that anyone calling any action right or wrong is as deluded as a theist.

No, I would not agree with that, so don't go about presuming anything. What I would say is that when I judge an action to be right or wrong, I recognise that I am judging it based upon what values I personally hold to be most important.

Moreover, I am perfectly open to adjusting my view of what is and isn't moral, and am better able to discuss morality with those whose values differ to mine, as I may be able to frame the argument in terms of their values, and not in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'.

The most they can do is to promote certain shared values, not as an absolute, but as a convenient modus vivendi.

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. If one person values 'the rights of the individual' and another values 'the rights of society', then on what basis can the first person promote their value to the second?

These truths are not self-evident. There are no universal human rights.

There are things that I consider to be universal human rights based upon my moral system. However, as there are a number of things that some people consider to be universal human rights and some people do not consider to be a right at all - that itself serves as an example of how different values can divide moral opinion, even in Western civilisation.

I think it's a convenient label.

Of course you think it's a convenient label. It fits your preconceived notions of 'scientific boundaries' without any of that pesky need to justify your position - just say that something is scientism run amok and you seem to be making a valid point, even though all you're doing is spouting useless unjustified rhetoric. It's a similar thing as to what the creationists do when they call people 'Darwinists'.

Mind you, the irony is off the charts here. I take it you shant be complaining when Articulett or Complexity call people 'apologists' anymore, eh? After all, they use it as a term that is convenient for them!

UnrepentantSinner

27th April 2008, 08:20 PM

I take it you shant be complaining when Articulett or Complexity call people 'apologists' anymore, eh?

I'll continue complaining about them lying when they inappropriately appellate people with it, but if you want to be an apologist for their lies, knock yourself out.

Mobyseven

27th April 2008, 08:29 PM

I'll continue complaining about them lying when they inappropriately appellate people with it, but if you want to be an apologist for their lies, knock yourself out.

You appear to have misunderstood my position. I do not agree with the way Articulett uses the word 'apologist' - while I agree with her on a great many things, I think that her use of this term creates confusion about what she means by it, as her definition does not jibe with the definition commonly used. I also sometimes disagree with who she considers (by her own definition) apologists.

I thought I had made my point clear, especially considering that I compared her use of 'apologist' to the use of the term 'scientism', for which I have a clear disdain, but evidently I had not. Sorry.

articulett

27th April 2008, 09:05 PM

An opinion isn't a lie... however misrepresenting what people said and arguing a straw man version of that-- is dishonest. And so I say that the term liar is more fitting of Unrepentant Sinner.

I think we'd all know what I meant if I said a Scientologist Apologist... such a person would exaggerate the words of a critic of Scientology to make the critic sound worse than what he was criticizing... while dismissing and arguing away harms caused by Scientology.

I think there are people on this forum who do that with religion/faith. You cannot criticize religion without them hearing you say "all believers are bad". You cannot ask them to examine their own biases by plugging in another woo because they are so enraged that you might even consider them biased-- apparently in their mind they are much smarter and more diplomatic than anyone else seems to see them.

Moreover I think these people promote a kind of atheist bigotry in the name of some cause or other that only they seem to be aware of. They hear what isn't there... faith is never to blame for anything, and everything the outspoken atheist says is a sign of evil intent--death camps and militancy and immorality and who knows what else.

I call these people "apologists". I think that's a very nice word considering what they've called me (liar, for one). I like the people they regularly insult much more than I like them. These people, often who use terms like "god hater" imagine themselves to be givers of "helpful criticisms" while being completely unaware that few people would go to them for social advice. Moreover, these same people tend to criticize people with criticism that could be better aimed at themselves. They complain that others don't take their criticism well, while being a piss poor model for "how to take criticism".

They imagine and hear evil and intent and attack and lies and stridency in the words of others while imagining their own words are gentle little flowers of wisdom and guidance from diplomatic and warm people. They pretend to be diplomats but they are divisive and always trying to promote divisiveness while accusing others of doing such.

Yeah... Westprog is an apologist; I have him on ignore. I think the apologists deserve each other. I prefer to hang out with those they find strident and awful and militant. I think the people they criticize are much finer people than apologists myself. But we don't all need to like everybody. I certainly see no one in the apologist camp as someone whom I want to be like-- I find them smarmy and irrational for the most part-- but, hey -- opinions... if people dish them out, I do hope they can take them in.

Such people often criticize people I like-- other posters and Dawkins, for example... and they hear all this militancy that isn't there... so yeah... since the things they call me and say about the people I respect tend to be rather loathsome and bigoted-- I think "apologist" is a rather nice term reflecting my "opinion" of them --and I find it amusing that it makes them so damn mad.

I guess it touches a sore spot. Sometimes people need to get their feathers ruffled to evolve. Isn't that what this thread is about?

ETA
I believe Moby was pointing out the irony of someone demanding to use the word "scientism" while getting upset with someone using the word "apologist"... apparently you see one word as a LIE... and the other as nothing even worth commenting upon. Not only that, you missed Moby's point to accuse him of taking "sides" when there doesn't need to be "sides", Mr. divisive. Remember, people can disagree with you without "worshiping Dawkins" being a "fanboy" or deserving the ridiculous appellate "god hater".

Your double standard is showing, US...

westprog

28th April 2008, 03:27 AM

Of course you think it's a convenient label. It fits your preconceived notions of 'scientific boundaries' without any of that pesky need to justify your position - just say that something is scientism run amok and you seem to be making a valid point, even though all you're doing is spouting useless unjustified rhetoric. It's a similar thing as to what the creationists do when they call people 'Darwinists'.

Mind you, the irony is off the charts here. I take it you shant be complaining when Articulett or Complexity call people 'apologists' anymore, eh? After all, they use it as a term that is convenient for them!

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. Moby7 is ruling out any use of the term scientism as being unhelpful. I'm claiming that it's a valid description of inappropriate uses of science. For example, a claim that moral systems can rest on science is an example of scientism. As Moby7 has said, moral systems just rest on other moral systems. It's a matter of which one we choose. Moby7 wants to rule the term out of the language altogether

As for Articulett's use of "apologist" - I'm sure I'm not the only person to note that when she makes such claims she doesn't ever quote the offending post, or describe the offence in any detail. It's thus very difficult to say whether she's using it appropriately or not. Since her anger seems to be aimed, in this case, at heretical atheists, I'm not too pushed either way.

westprog

28th April 2008, 03:30 AM

simplified life, simplified morality-- perfect for simple minds.

If it feels good, do it, eh?

westprog

28th April 2008, 03:38 AM

Sorry for not referencing you directly as I was crunched for time/bandwidth this morning. :)

And reading your clarification, here's my take on it. General religious claims cannot be tested by the scientific method, but specific religious claims and most supernatural claims (ghosts, which I don't consider a religious claim for example) can be tested. I don't consider the claim that God created the Earth or that the Himilayas are Shiva's braided hair to be testable within the scientific method. That the Earth and all life on it was spontaneously created 6,000 years ago or that a particular child is the reincarnation of a deceased person is definately testible and falsifiable.

I don't believe the metaphysical claims about God or Shiva mentioned above, but I cannot falsify them with the scientific method.

I agree with the above. It's quite possible for religious claims to spill over into the scientific arena, and it's then entirely appropriate for science to test the claims, and confirm or rebut them. If that ends up upsetting somebody's beliefs, then that's not the fault of science.

If somebody attempts to put the imprimatur of science on a claim that is not testable or verifiable, then that is a misuse of science.

westprog

28th April 2008, 03:58 AM

No, I would not agree with that, so don't go about presuming anything. What I would say is that when I judge an action to be right or wrong, I recognise that I am judging it based upon what values I personally hold to be most important.

Moreover, I am perfectly open to adjusting my view of what is and isn't moral, and am better able to discuss morality with those whose values differ to mine, as I may be able to frame the argument in terms of their values, and not in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'.

However, if you are talking to someone who insists that a particular act is wrong, not according to her personal viewpoint, but in some absolute sense, then I presume you will regard them as being mistaken in precisely the same sense as a theist is mistaken about the nature of reality.

I will continue to make presumptions based on what you're saying, and you're entirely welcome to clarify your meaning.

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. If one person values 'the rights of the individual' and another values 'the rights of society', then on what basis can the first person promote their value to the second?

If there is no acceptance of any fundamental moral values, then it's entirely possible to have total disagreement. However, the rights of society are normally held to derive from the rights of all the people within that society, so coming up with a solution isn't that difficult. Most moral systems are based on some version of the Golden Rule, and most societies are loosely based around that principle.

There are things that I consider to be universal human rights based upon my moral system. However, as there are a number of things that some people consider to be universal human rights and some people do not consider to be a right at all - that itself serves as an example of how different values can divide moral opinion, even in Western civilisation.

But your moral system has no firmer basis than another, which might not recognise universal human rights.

Mobyseven

28th April 2008, 03:59 AM

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. Moby7 is ruling out any use of the term scientism as being unhelpful. I'm claiming that it's a valid description of inappropriate uses of science. For example, a claim that moral systems can rest on science is an example of scientism. As Moby7 has said, moral systems just rest on other moral systems. It's a matter of which one we choose. Moby7 wants to rule the term out of the language altogether

Mobyseven finds it polite when people talk to him, not about him as though they are delivering a lecture to a class. Mobyseven would also appreciate it if people would stop misrepresenting his position, especially replacing it with nonsense ideas such as moral systems resting on other moral systems. Mobyseven thinks that scientism is a nonsense term, as an 'inappropriate use of science' already has a name. It's called 'not actually doing science', and while not as catching or pejorative as 'scientism', it actually conveys meaning rather than acting as a silly little put down.

westprog

28th April 2008, 04:04 AM

...
Yeah... Westprog is an apologist; I have him on ignore.
...
opinions... if people dish them out, I do hope they can take them in.
...
Your double standard is showing, US

It's a shame that articulett has me on ignore. Too much irrationality, I suppose.

westprog

28th April 2008, 04:22 AM

Mobyseven finds it polite when people talk to him, not about him as though they are delivering a lecture to a class.

I proclaim the OP a...
FAIL

Westprog might find it easier to be polite to Moby7 if he hadn't kicked off his entry into the discussion as if he were marking an exam. If you don't like it, don't dish it out - is that good game theory?

Part of the time a one-on-one discussion is taking place. However, it's an open forum, and ignoring the other people involved in the debate is also impolite. So there's a balance involved.

Mobyseven would also appreciate it if people would stop misrepresenting his position, especially replacing it with nonsense ideas such as moral systems resting on other moral systems.

Which moral decision we use is, for all intents and purposes, arbitrary: If we had a system that told us which moral system we should use, then that system would itself be a moral system, and we would be begging the question.

I'm trying to be fair here, but I cannot see how I am misrepresenting the M7 position.

Mobyseven thinks that scientism is a nonsense term, as an 'inappropriate use of science' already has a name. It's called 'not actually doing science', and while not as catching or pejorative as 'scientism', it actually conveys meaning rather than acting as a silly little put down.

There are a lot of words in the English language for which alternatives exist. Scientism doesn't simply refer to 'not actually doing science' but to 'claiming scientific justification when not actually doing science', as with Scientology, Christian Science, Scientific Socialism, Economics, Creation Science and so on.

Mobyseven

28th April 2008, 05:54 AM

However, if you are talking to someone who insists that a particular act is wrong, not according to her personal viewpoint, but in some absolute sense, then I presume you will regard them as being mistaken in precisely the same sense as a theist is mistaken about the nature of reality.

Indeed, the person who claims there is an absolute moral right and wrong is mistaken. What is your point?

If there is no acceptance of any fundamental moral values, then it's entirely possible to have total disagreement. However, the rights of society are normally held to derive from the rights of all the people within that society, so coming up with a solution isn't that difficult. Most moral systems are based on some version of the Golden Rule, and most societies are loosely based around that principle.

A person who values society above the individual is probably going to adhere to some form of utilitarianism. A person who values the individual above society is probably going to adhere to some form of liberalism. Sure, they may agree on a number of issues (e.g. 'murder is bad'), but there are likely an even greater number of moral issues that they will disagree about. You are projecting your own moral system onto the issue by saying that, "...the rights of society are normally held to derive from the rights of all the people within that society," as in many societies, past and present, that is not the case.

But your moral system has no firmer basis than another, which might not recognise universal human rights.

Is that a problem?

meg

28th April 2008, 06:13 AM

There are a lot of words in the English language for which alternatives exist. Scientism doesn't simply refer to 'not actually doing science' but to 'claiming scientific justification when not actually doing science', as with Scientology, Christian Science, Scientific Socialism, Economics, Creation Science and so on.

I would also think that the word should refer to people that "use pieces of science to justify moral beliefs while ignoring others."

Case in point, I was talking with one of the "abstinence only" counselors at my kid's school a year or so ago, and she had several studies she made a big point to talk about, which attempted to "prove" that adolescents should not have sex, and that waiting until marriage was the right thing to do. One of those studies linked early sexual activity to delinquent behavior, and said that adolescents that had sex early were more likely to try drugs or engage in criminal behavior.

The other day I was surfing the net and came upon this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071112140723.htm
A new study by University of Virginia clinical psychologists has found that teens who have sex at an early age may be less inclined to exhibit delinquent behavior in early adulthood than their peers who waited until they were older to have sex. The study also suggests that early sex may play a role in helping these teens develop better social relationships in early adulthood.

One of the things about understanding and using science is knowing that things change. That new developments, new research can sometimes show up which challenges previously held beliefs about what is "true".

I've forwarded the link to the counselor, but I'm guessing that she won't be planning on changing her mind any time soon. To be honest, I will be surprised if she even reads past the first paragraph. I think what she wants is for kids not to have sex, and she doesn't actually care whether her reasoning is sound or not.

This kind of thing is why I have a problem with the whole NOMA concept. There are many places in which we can use science and reason to help us decide what strategies might help us achieve our sociological goals. The trick is getting people to realize that "living within god's law" is not a particularly good or useful goal. A more useful goal might be to ask "what strategies can we employ to help our children to grow up to be healthy, well adjusted, happy, and productive adults?" With that goal, we can study, for example healthy, well adjusted, happy, productive adults and ask them what they were like as adolescents. Or we can look at countries that seem to produce more healthy, well adjusted, happy, productive adults and modify some of our child rearing techniques to mirror theirs. Maybe, also, we will find, after enough study, that the age at which a kid has sex really doesn't matter; that the relationships they develop as adults are more a product of the types of relationships their parents had and modeled to them as children. Who knows?

I'd write more, but I've got to get to work..

Mobyseven

28th April 2008, 06:14 AM

Westprog might find it easier to be polite to Moby7 if he hadn't kicked off his entry into the discussion as if he were marking an exam. If you don't like it, don't dish it out - is that good game theory?

I'm sorry - you don't like it when people point out that you've engaged in logical fallacies. That's fine, I get it. I'm not going to stop doing it though - perhaps you could stop using them in your arguments instead?

Part of the time a one-on-one discussion is taking place. However, it's an open forum, and ignoring the other people involved in the debate is also impolite. So there's a balance involved.

Absolute nonsense. Yes, it's an open forum...in which you and I are having a discussion. You don't just turn around and ignore me so you can address some perceived audience with a discourse on a position I don't hold. It's rude.

I'm trying to be fair here, but I cannot see how I am misrepresenting the M7 position.

You don't see it? Let's try this again, shall we?

"If we had a system that told us which moral system we should use, then that system would itself be a moral system, and we would be begging the question."

Now, for ten points: What is begging the question? Don't worry, I know you've had trouble spotting these things before (or else you'd stop using them) - it's a logical fallacy. And that would make the argument invalid. Hence, my entire point (which you have unsurprisingly missed and mistaken for it's exact opposite) is that moral systems cannot be founded on other moral systems.

There are a lot of words in the English language for which alternatives exist. Scientism doesn't simply refer to 'not actually doing science' but to 'claiming scientific justification when not actually doing science', as with Scientology, Christian Science, Scientific Socialism, Economics, Creation Science and so on.

We already have a word for that too. It's "pseudoscience". "Scientism" is ugly, useless, and is generally used in a derogatory fashion. Not only that, but you are taking the word - which evidently means both "not doing science" and "pseudoscience", and are applying it to situations which are neither. What you are doing is analogous to me saying that "******" is a reasonable thing to call a black person, and then turning around and using it on a man from Thailand.

westprog

28th April 2008, 07:57 AM

Indeed, the person who claims there is an absolute moral right and wrong is mistaken. What is your point?

Simply that the topic should possibly be "Why do they regard religion and moral certainty as being exempt from skeptical scrutiny?". I've seen plenty of criticism of religion - little of fixed moral codes.

A person who values society above the individual is probably going to adhere to some form of utilitarianism. A person who values the individual above society is probably going to adhere to some form of liberalism. Sure, they may agree on a number of issues (e.g. 'murder is bad'), but there are likely an even greater number of moral issues that they will disagree about. You are projecting your own moral system onto the issue by saying that, "...the rights of society are normally held to derive from the rights of all the people within that society," as in many societies, past and present, that is not the case.

There's a difference between a moral code, and the political means of implementing it. There's also the fact that many people don't regard the fact that they believe certain actions are wrong as justification for their legislative outlawing.

Darat

28th April 2008, 08:20 AM

Simply that the topic should possibly be "Why do they regard religion and moral certainty as being exempt from skeptical scrutiny?". I've seen plenty of criticism of religion - little of fixed moral codes.

...snip...

There have been plenty of such discussions here - use the search engine and don't confine yourself to just this section since such issues are often discussed in the "Social Issues & Current Events" section. (Also in the past in what is now the "Politics" section as that used to include the social issue discussions.)

westprog

28th April 2008, 08:29 AM

I'm sorry - you don't like it when people point out that you've engaged in logical fallacies. That's fine, I get it. I'm not going to stop doing it though - perhaps you could stop using them in your arguments instead?

You know what you said, and it wasn't a matter of pointing out a logical fallacy - it was a case of gratuitous incivility as an opening gambit in the discussion. And you know what - I let it go, because I really don't care any more. It wasn't worth bothering with. But to kick off the discussion with a deliberate insult, and then to start complaining a few posts later because you weren't treated with the respect to which you think you're due - well, that's just hypocrisy.

Absolute nonsense. Yes, it's an open forum...in which you and I are having a discussion. You don't just turn around and ignore me so you can address some perceived audience with a discourse on a position I don't hold. It's rude.

I see. But when you stand up, turn around and address the audience and tell them what a jerk I am, that's OK? Because you didn't quote me directly, just summarised it in your own words?

Look - I don't care. If you want to complain that you aren't being treated right, go ahead. But it's not a topic that I'm going to spend more time on.

westprog

28th April 2008, 08:39 AM

You don't see it? Let's try this again, shall we?

"If we had a system that told us which moral system we should use, then that system would itself be a moral system, and we would be begging the question."

Now, for ten points: What is begging the question? Don't worry, I know you've had trouble spotting these things before (or else you'd stop using them) - it's a logical fallacy. And that would make the argument invalid. Hence, my entire point (which you have unsurprisingly missed and mistaken for it's exact opposite) is that moral systems cannot be founded on other moral systems.

Which is what I am actually saying. Obviously moral systems cannot just be based on other moral systems. At base there must be an assertion. In the same way that Euclidean Geometry rests on its five axioms, any moral system must rest on certain assumptions. In a materialist worldview, any such moral axioms cannot be held as being necessarily true, and hence the moral system cannot be considered as being well founded.

I'm not actually disagreeing here - I'm just trying to point out the implications of a materialistic worldview. There are other posters claiming that it's possible to derive morality and ethics from pure reason. I'm saying that it isn't. You have to have some axiomatic base, and any such moral contention has to be non-materialistic.

I still don't see the area of disagreement here.

westprog

28th April 2008, 08:42 AM

There have been plenty of such discussions here - use the search engine and don't confine yourself to just this section since such issues are often discussed in the "Social Issues & Current Events" section. (Also in the past in what is now the "Politics" section as that used to include the social issue discussions.)

I doubt if any of this stuff is entirely original. I try to make my arguments sound, but I don't expect them to be brand new.

westprog

28th April 2008, 08:46 AM

"Scientism" is ugly, useless, and is generally used in a derogatory fashion.

However, it does have a meaning. And if I misused it (which I may well have) then that goes to show that it has a precise enough meaning that one can be corrected for using it carelessly.

I Ratant

28th April 2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:
A new study by University of Virginia clinical psychologists has found that teens who have sex at an early age may be less inclined to exhibit delinquent behavior in early adulthood than their peers who waited until they were older to have sex. The study also suggests that early sex may play a role in helping these teens develop better social relationships in early adulthood.
.
Didn't have early sex, and didn't go delinquent. :)
Moderately asocial thouigh.

I Ratant

28th April 2008, 09:18 AM

I doubt if any of this stuff is entirely original. I try to make my arguments sound, but I don't expect them to be brand new.
.
So far as I've seen, they're neither.

westprog

28th April 2008, 09:55 AM

.
So far as I've seen, they're neither.

Well, I never saw that one coming.

Mobyseven

28th April 2008, 07:15 PM

Which is what I am actually saying. Obviously moral systems cannot just be based on other moral systems. At base there must be an assertion. In the same way that Euclidean Geometry rests on its five axioms, any moral system must rest on certain assumptions. In a materialist worldview, any such moral axioms cannot be held as being necessarily true, and hence the moral system cannot be considered as being well founded.

Not necessarily well founded, no - but one moral system can still be better founded than another moral system, if the first moral system is based on an assumption, but the second moral system is based on an incorrect assumption.

Ironically, it is possible to determine when an assumption is incorrect, but not when it is correct (I discussed this a bit in the other thread). Moral systems could, in that regard, be subject to Popperian falsification (though I'd rather not get into that idea here - keep the topic reasonably focused).

I'm not actually disagreeing here - I'm just trying to point out the implications of a materialistic worldview. There are other posters claiming that it's possible to derive morality and ethics from pure reason. I'm saying that it isn't. You have to have some axiomatic base, and any such moral contention has to be non-materialistic.

You have to have some kind of axiomatic base, yes - those are the values I discussed. But why on earth would you say that any moral contention has to be non-materialistic? A non-materialistic foundation is the worst possible type of foundation, because it is not based in reality as we understand it, and is thus unjustified.

MarkCorrigan

29th April 2008, 12:28 AM

If it feels good, do it, eh?

Well you either fail to understand moral relativism or you're deliberately being an obtuse git. Which is it?

Technically this IS what the universe says about morality. That is, there IS o morality, and therefore we could, all things considered kill anyone we wanted for any reason, rape people in the streets, loot, pillage and steal.

However this is not what moral relativism states WILL happen unless the universe is populated by utter morons who do not understand game theory really does apply.
Imagine that the whole world consists of two people, and they both have a pistol. Now imagine that they are in one room, and are stood opposite one another.

In this situation in order to promote their safety the best thing to do would to remove the threat, and thus kill the other. However, this is not logical, as the moment that it seemed that one would shoot the other, then the second person would lift their gun too, and the stalemate would ensue. The people therefore agree that while they don't have to leave the other alive, it is in their best interests not to remove their opposite, because then they would not face the possibility of being removed themselves. There would be a permanent stalemate whereby the people would not harm the other on the promise they would not be harmed, thus is the basis for all civilisation. Don't harm me or you yourself will be punished, and while it would theoretically be best to take everything, understand that this will be prevented, and you are better off accepting a slice of the pie rather than the whole thing, and we will do the same.

lupus_in_fabula

29th April 2008, 01:23 AM

Which is what I am actually saying. Obviously moral systems cannot just be based on other moral systems. At base there must be an assertion. In the same way that Euclidean Geometry rests on its five axioms, any moral system must rest on certain assumptions. In a materialist worldview, any such moral axioms cannot be held as being necessarily true, and hence the moral system cannot be considered as being well founded.

I'm not actually disagreeing here - I'm just trying to point out the implications of a materialistic worldview. There are other posters claiming that it's possible to derive morality and ethics from pure reason. I'm saying that it isn't. You have to have some axiomatic base, and any such moral contention has to be non-materialistic.

I still don't see the area of disagreement here.

I guess most of us here are fully aware that any moral axiom is ultimately arbitrary. Since we already know that, what’s the point of pretending?

Understanding why we behave as we do is a fundamental property leading to acceptance. A moral foundation does not have to be non-materialistic (that doesn’t make sense anyway), it only needs to be regarded as valuable, and followed.

By using rational thinking and science (which go hand in hand), we certainly have a powerful tool for weeding out the obvious ill-based moral axioms (like homosexuality as sin or whatever crap it’s touted to be).

To pinpoint what indeed is valuable and should be regarded as a foundational principle is more difficult, but it makes more sense, again, to start building that via an understanding of why we behave as we do, than simply pretend such moral knowledge is directly derived from any ludicrous proposition based on superstition. Basically it’s about taking responsibility and waking up to reality.

westprog

29th April 2008, 06:31 AM

Well you either fail to understand moral relativism or you're deliberately being an obtuse git. Which is it?

I'm referring to the Articulett's description of her actions as being motivated by what makes her feel good. As she is blessed with empathy, her actions are benevolent. The flaw with this approach for everyone is that some people feel bad doing bad things to other people.

westprog

29th April 2008, 06:38 AM

Well you either fail to understand moral relativism or you're deliberately being an obtuse git. Which is it?

Technically this IS what the universe says about morality. That is, there IS o morality, and therefore we could, all things considered kill anyone we wanted for any reason, rape people in the streets, loot, pillage and steal.

However this is not what moral relativism states WILL happen unless the universe is populated by utter morons who do not understand game theory really does apply.
Imagine that the whole world consists of two people, and they both have a pistol. Now imagine that they are in one room, and are stood opposite one another.

In this situation in order to promote their safety the best thing to do would to remove the threat, and thus kill the other. However, this is not logical, as the moment that it seemed that one would shoot the other, then the second person would lift their gun too, and the stalemate would ensue. The people therefore agree that while they don't have to leave the other alive, it is in their best interests not to remove their opposite, because then they would not face the possibility of being removed themselves. There would be a permanent stalemate whereby the people would not harm the other on the promise they would not be harmed, thus is the basis for all civilisation. Don't harm me or you yourself will be punished, and while it would theoretically be best to take everything, understand that this will be prevented, and you are better off accepting a slice of the pie rather than the whole thing, and we will do the same.

What if there is just one pistol in the room. Each person has access to it for five minutes every day. What does game theory recommend then?

The trouble with game theory is that it sets up idealised small scale situations. What happens in real life is that people have hundreds of small choices to make every day. In many cases, they can act selfishly without personal consequences. It may be the case that if everyone acted the same way, that everyone would be worse off. However, that doesn't mean that game theory tells someone to act in a way harmful to himself in the hope that everyone else will do the same thing and hence benefit everyone equally. Game theory is no panacea.

meg

29th April 2008, 07:31 AM

The trouble with game theory is that it sets up idealised small scale situations. What happens in real life is that people have hundreds of small choices to make every day. In many cases, they can act selfishly without personal consequences. It may be the case that if everyone acted the same way, that everyone would be worse off. However, that doesn't mean that game theory tells someone to act in a way harmful to himself in the hope that everyone else will do the same thing and hence benefit everyone equally. Game theory is no panacea.

Game theory is not a recommendation, it is useful as a model of how things work, though.

We make selfish and altruistic choices all day long, many without even thinking about them. Sometimes we keep found money, sometime we turn it in. Sometimes we grab the last cookie, sometimes we offer it to another. Sometimes we work to send money or food to those in need, sometimes we choose not to. There is no one "right" or "wrong" in any given situation. We rationalize our actions all the time.

Often people behave selfishly without knowing, and only change their behavior after realizing that they have inadvertently harmed someone or something. Our moral code is constantly being reevaluated and altered to fit our knowledge about the world, and our place in it, as well as our value system. Slavery, racism, ecological destruction.. there are many examples of things we once thought were acceptable but now consider wrong.

Darth Rotor

29th April 2008, 07:41 AM

westprog

29th April 2008, 08:25 AM

Not necessarily well founded, no - but one moral system can still be better founded than another moral system, if the first moral system is based on an assumption, but the second moral system is based on an incorrect assumption.

No, moral systems are never fundamentally based on assumptions, incorrect or otherwise. There is always, at base, an "ought". It is this which determines the moral system.

Ironically, it is possible to determine when an assumption is incorrect, but not when it is correct (I discussed this a bit in the other thread). Moral systems could, in that regard, be subject to Popperian falsification (though I'd rather not get into that idea here - keep the topic reasonably focused).

You have to have some kind of axiomatic base, yes - those are the values I discussed. But why on earth would you say that any moral contention has to be non-materialistic? A non-materialistic foundation is the worst possible type of foundation, because it is not based in reality as we understand it, and is thus unjustified.

A non-materialistic foundations is always the basis of a moral system. It is never based in reality as we understand it. In a materialistic universe such a choice is effectively arbitrary.

A moral system asserts that certain things ought to happen in preference to other things. A materialistic universe does not prefer one state over another. It is a matter of indifference to science, reason or the universe as a whole whether I live or die. When I construct a moral system which considers it better that I live, I am adding to materialism.

This is fairly fundamental, and I thought we had all this sorted out already.

Darat

29th April 2008, 08:28 AM

No, moral systems are never fundamentally based on assumptions, incorrect or otherwise. There is always, at base, an "ought". It is this which determines the moral system.

...snip...

An "ought" in this context is an assumption.

westprog

29th April 2008, 08:30 AM

Slavery, racism, ecological destruction.. there are many examples of things we once thought were acceptable but now consider wrong.

I consider that such things can be considered as being explicitly wrong. I'm interested in establishing the basis of morality without divine commands.

westprog

29th April 2008, 08:32 AM

An "ought" in this context is an assumption.

Call it an assumption if you wish. The fact remains that the "ought" does not exist in a materialistic universe.

westprog

29th April 2008, 08:38 AM

Understanding why we behave as we do is a fundamental property leading to acceptance. A moral foundation does not have to be non-materialistic (that doesn’t make sense anyway), it only needs to be regarded as valuable, and followed.

But there is no materialistic meaning for value. It is an imaginary human construct without scientific justification. In a materialistic universe, value is just something we choose to assign. All choices are equally valid.

By using rational thinking and science (which go hand in hand), we certainly have a powerful tool for weeding out the obvious ill-based moral axioms (like homosexuality as sin or whatever crap it’s touted to be).

It's impossible to use reason to root out moral axioms since the axioms are never based on reason. That's not to say that reason can't be used to figure out what axioms might lead to particular results. However, rational thinking and science don't care whether we all vanish in a cloud of radioactive dust. The universe is indifferent.

To pinpoint what indeed is valuable and should be regarded as a foundational principle is more difficult, but it makes more sense, again, to start building that via an understanding of why we behave as we do, than simply pretend such moral knowledge is directly derived from any ludicrous proposition based on superstition. Basically it’s about taking responsibility and waking up to reality.

Reality is that either we believe that right and wrong have some kind of independent existence - which is every bit as mystical as praying to little baby Jesus - or we recognise that moral systems are just arbitrary ways of getting along, and that one has as much intrinsic value as another.

Darat

29th April 2008, 08:40 AM

Call it an assumption if you wish. The fact remains that the "ought" does not exist in a materialistic universe.

I don't know about a materialistic universe but I do know that "ought" exists in this universe!

Darat

29th April 2008, 08:44 AM

But there is no materialistic meaning for value. It is an imaginary human construct without scientific justification. In a materialistic universe, value is just something we choose to assign. All choices are equally valid.
...snip...

This is just an assertion - can you back it up?

I'm also going to have to ask you to provide a define for your use of the word "materialistic". I had thought you were using it in the usual philosophical sense but there is no way that can fit how you've used it in your last few posts.

meg

29th April 2008, 08:57 AM

No, moral systems are never fundamentally based on assumptions, incorrect or otherwise. There is always, at base, an "ought". It is this which determines the moral system.

A non-materialistic foundations is always the basis of a moral system. It is never based in reality as we understand it. In a materialistic universe such a choice is effectively arbitrary.

A moral system asserts that certain things ought to happen in preference to other things. A materialistic universe does not prefer one state over another. It is a matter of indifference to science, reason or the universe as a whole whether I live or die. When I construct a moral system which considers it better that I live, I am adding to materialism.

This is fairly fundamental, and I thought we had all this sorted out already.

I don't think it's either/or. It's both. Everyone's moral system is constructed with the premise that "it is better if I live". That's programmed into us by nature. But there's more to it than that. It includes "and this is how the world I live in works". Our morals are conditional.

When food is plentiful, we tend to think it's better for everyone to have an equal share.

When food is scarce, we think up reasons to justify why we should get more than other people.

westprog

29th April 2008, 09:10 AM

I don't know about a materialistic universe but I do know that "ought" exists in this universe!

If you believe that certain events are objectively preferable to other events, then you have moved away from a universe based purely on science and reason. Which is OK by me - I believe that certain events are objectively preferable to other events. But if you do believe that the universe has such preferences, it's not possible to discover them using reason and science.

westprog

29th April 2008, 09:21 AM

This is just an assertion - can you back it up?

I'm also going to have to ask you to provide a define for your use of the word "materialistic". I had thought you were using it in the usual philosophical sense but there is no way that can fit how you've used it in your last few posts.

I'm not entirely clear on the precise philosophical use. I'm not a professional philosopher, so some terms are going to need to be defined.

In this case, when I refer to a materialistic universe, I'm referring to one which is entirely governed by the laws of science. There seems to be a consensus among a number of atheists posting here that this is an accurate description of the universe. I'm interested in exploring the implications of that belief, and the possibility that other atheists have a different view.

Darat

29th April 2008, 09:22 AM

If you believe that certain events are objectively preferable to other events, then you have moved away from a universe based purely on science and reason. Which is OK by me - I believe that certain events are objectively preferable to other events. But if you do believe that the universe has such preferences, it's not possible to discover them using reason and science.
This is just an assertion - can you back it up?

I'm also going to have to ask you to provide a define for your use of the word "objective". I had thought you were using it in the usual philosophical sense but there is no way that can fit how you've used it in your last few posts.

Sorry for the seemingly parroting of my question but either you are just posting nonsense or you are using many words with quite different meanings to their standard usage.

lupus_in_fabula

29th April 2008, 09:28 AM

But there is no materialistic meaning for value. It is an imaginary human construct without scientific justification. In a materialistic universe, value is just something we choose to assign. All choices are equally valid.

There’s no meaning to values except when we regard them as meaningful. We should maybe try to find such values that don’t require meaningless fairytales to support them. I.e. we don’t need to believe in some fairytale in order to regard the golden rule as perhaps a valuable principle.

It's impossible to use reason to root out moral axioms since the axioms are never based on reason. That's not to say that reason can't be used to figure out what axioms might lead to particular results. However, rational thinking and science don't care whether we all vanish in a cloud of radioactive dust. The universe is indifferent.

As I already said, and you alluded to, reason and science go hand in hand. The more we understand the less obvious ill-based moral axioms can be justified. Homosexuality is a good example in this regard; there’s no foundation to the notion of sin, thus no foundation to regard homosexuality as something punishable. Understanding is the key, and rationality is a basic tool for understanding.

Reality is that either we believe that right and wrong have some kind of independent existence - which is every bit as mystical as praying to little baby Jesus - or we recognise that moral systems are just arbitrary ways of getting along, and that one has as much intrinsic value as another.

There are no intrinsic values anyway; we should stop pretending there are. That knowledge doesn’t stop us from following some values however. The more rational we are, and the more knowledge and understanding we have, the less there’s going to be ill-based values. Ultimately, morality is what we read between the lines.

Darat

29th April 2008, 09:28 AM

I'm not entirely clear on the precise philosophical use. I'm not a professional philosopher, so some terms are going to need to be defined.

In this case, when I refer to a materialistic universe, I'm referring to one which is entirely governed by the laws of science. There seems to be a consensus among a number of atheists posting here that this is an accurate description of the universe. I'm interested in exploring the implications of that belief, and the possibility that other atheists have a different view.

Thanks for the clarification but then it is as I said - all you have done is asserted your views, so far you have not supported your claims.

meg

29th April 2008, 09:31 AM

In this case, when I refer to a materialistic universe, I'm referring to one which is entirely governed by the laws of science. There seems to be a consensus among a number of atheists posting here that this is an accurate description of the universe. I'm interested in exploring the implications of that belief, and the possibility that other atheists have a different view.

Just want to clarify something here. Science does not "govern" the laws of the universe. Science is the method we use to discover and understand the laws of the universe.

articulett

29th April 2008, 09:37 AM

And it's not a "belief", it's a method-- the best one we have actually. There is no evidence that anything supernatural guides anything--

All "belief systems" are the equivalent of telling you what color clothes you should see when you look at the naked Emperor. We don't need to imagine clothes on the Emperor--we just avoid looking at him-- it's easy when he doesn't exist.

westprog

29th April 2008, 09:48 AM

I guess most of us here are fully aware that any moral axiom is ultimately arbitrary. Since we already know that, what’s the point of pretending?

I'm not sure if Darat accepts that, but I'm still working things through.

Mobyseven

29th April 2008, 09:05 PM

No, moral systems are never fundamentally based on assumptions, incorrect or otherwise. There is always, at base, an "ought". It is this which determines the moral system.

No, there is not. Where, for example, is the 'ought' in, "Human life is sacred," or, "Pleasure is good,"? These things can be values on which we base a moral system, but they are not themselves normative statements. Value judgments, yes - but that's the entire point!

A non-materialistic foundations is always the basis of a moral system. It is never based in reality as we understand it. In a materialistic universe such a choice is effectively arbitrary.

Absolute crap. The basis of a moral system is always going to be subjective, but subjective statements are not 'non-materialistic'. You're trying to say that just because something isn't objective it is non-materialistic, ignoring the fact that it is entirely possible to have subective materialistic statements. There is nothing 'non-materialistic' about the statement, "I like cheese," for example.

A moral system asserts that certain things ought to happen in preference to other things. A materialistic universe does not prefer one state over another. It is a matter of indifference to science, reason or the universe as a whole whether I live or die. When I construct a moral system which considers it better that I live, I am adding to materialism.

Again, pure nonsense. How can science, reason or the universe be indifferent to whether you live or die? You are projecting human attributes onto things that are not capable of thought - science, reason and the universe are incapable of being indifferent!

You seem to think that if one accepts a materialistic view of the universe, then one must accept a moral system that is 'objective' in the grand scheme of things: The universe doesn't care about anything, therefore neither should you. That is the exact opposite of the actual, logical conclusion: That our moral systems will necessarily be subjective, as there is no objective yardstick by which we can measure them. We can take our subjective assumptions, and build our moral systems from there.

In other words, when you construct a moral system that considers it better that you live, you are constructing a moral system based on a subjective opinion - there is nothing non-materialistic about it. And you certainly aren't adding to materialism - indeed, I have no idea what you mean by that. It seems to be no more than a nonsense statement.

This is fairly fundamental, and I thought we had all this sorted out already.

Indeed, it is fundamental, and if your head weren't so firmly lodged in your nether regions you might understand it. Unfortunately, you seem hell bent on insisting everybody play by your, incorrect, rules, so as of yet we haven't made any progress.

Honestly, take your smug, condescending tone to someone who gives a damn. I you want to have a discussion, you need to stop patronising those who disagree with you - because I guarantee you, I can dish it all right back out at you and not blink twice.

westprog

30th April 2008, 09:25 AM

Just want to clarify something here. Science does not "govern" the laws of the universe. Science is the method we use to discover and understand the laws of the universe.

But I didn't say that science governed the universe. I said that the Laws of science governed the universe - such laws being considered to be fundamental to the way the universe works. They aren't subservient to science - it's the job of science to figure out how they work. Incidentally, it's never (or almost never) the case that science claims to have the final word on what the laws are.

meg

30th April 2008, 09:42 AM

In this case, when I refer to a materialistic universe, I'm referring to one which is entirely governed by the laws of science. There seems to be a consensus among a number of atheists posting here that this is an accurate description of the universe. I'm interested in exploring the implications of that belief, and the possibility that other atheists have a different view.
Alright, I'll bite. I subscribe to that world view. - That the universe is completely governed by the laws of science. What implications of that belief are you attempting to explore?

westprog

1st May 2008, 04:09 AM

I'm also going to have to ask you to provide a define for your use of the word "objective". I had thought you were using it in the usual philosophical sense but there is no way that can fit how you've used it in your last few posts.

When I say that something is objectively wrong, I mean that it is wrong regardless of what someone's opinion is. I mean that it is wrong in the same sense that an electron has a negative charge, and that it is impossible to accelerate faster than the speed of light.

As far as I can tell, MobySeven does not believe this to be true. It is, as far as I can tell, incompatible with the materialist viewpoint.

westprog

1st May 2008, 04:37 AM

No, there is not. Where, for example, is the 'ought' in, "Human life is sacred," or, "Pleasure is good,"? These things can be values on which we base a moral system, but they are not themselves normative statements. Value judgments, yes - but that's the entire point!

The statement "Human life is sacred" becomes a meaningless platitude unless it can be developed into an imperative of some kind. "Human life is sacred, hooray" means nothing. "Human life is sacred, thou shalt not kill" becomes the basis of a moral system. The moral code starts with the "ought". Up till then, we have very little - possibly the basis of a belief system, but not one that changes anything.

Absolute crap. The basis of a moral system is always going to be subjective, but subjective statements are not 'non-materialistic'. You're trying to say that just because something isn't objective it is non-materialistic, ignoring the fact that it is entirely possible to have subective materialistic statements. There is nothing 'non-materialistic' about the statement, "I like cheese," for example.

"I like cheese" can be considered as a valid statement in a materialistic universe. "Cheese is good" cannot.

Again, pure nonsense. How can science, reason or the universe be indifferent to whether you live or die? You are projecting human attributes onto things that are not capable of thought - science, reason and the universe are incapable of being indifferent!

And your point is?

You seem to think that if one accepts a materialistic view of the universe, then one must accept a moral system that is 'objective' in the grand scheme of things: The universe doesn't care about anything, therefore neither should you. That is the exact opposite of the actual, logical conclusion: That our moral systems will necessarily be subjective, as there is no objective yardstick by which we can measure them. We can take our subjective assumptions, and build our moral systems from there.

In other words, when you construct a moral system that considers it better that you live, you are constructing a moral system based on a subjective opinion - there is nothing non-materialistic about it. And you certainly aren't adding to materialism - indeed, I have no idea what you mean by that. It seems to be no more than a nonsense statement.

But how can a moral system based on one preference be better founded than a moral system based on another preference? If systems are based on preferences, then one preference is as good as another.

It may be that a moral system is improperly derived from an initial preference. It may be that the derivation of the moral code relies on facts that aren't well founded. But a preference is not a fact, and de gustibus non est disputandum.

This is precisely the grey area that I am picking away at. If a moral code is based on preferences, then it cannot be said to have a firm base in reason. That is not to say that it doesn't exist entirely in the materialistic universe. Of course it does. But the preferences have no extrinsic meaning.

What is strange about this is that there seems to be general acceptance of this point in principle, but in practice, most of the atheists posting here seem to regard the existence of an objective moral code as to be taken for granted. The "faith is evil" thread is based on a statement that is nonsensical in a materialistic analysis. If moral codes are a matter of preference, how can "evil" be considered as something real?

HUHA snipped.

westprog

1st May 2008, 04:46 AM

Alright, I'll bite. I subscribe to that world view. - That the universe is completely governed by the laws of science. What implications of that belief are you attempting to explore?

In the succession of discussion with Mobyseven, it seems that a moral code in such a universe is derived, ultimately, from preferences. Someone who believes in such a universe cannot believe in inherent moral values.

(Darat seems to disagree with me about this. He says that he can't follow my arguments, and I can't see what his objections are, so I'll leave that aside for now).

I'm interested to see how atheists deal with this. In the thread "faith is evil" I note that Volatile and ThaiBoxerKen both use "evil" as a term having an objective meaning. They don't specifically state that "evil" is a property of the universe - but neither do they treat it as if it were a matter of their own personal choices.

I'm delving into this.