"I don't believe in atheists" [Archive]

UnrepentantSinner

27th April 2008, 06:57 AM

I turned over to C-SPAN2's Book TV this morning and saw a programming update for Chris Hedges doing a presentation and Q&A for his book I Don't Believe In Atheists and was prepared to watch while rolling my eyes and shouting obscenities. When it started there was audio difficulties with the C-SPAN recording and just looking at him I thought "what a {rule 10}". Then the audio kicked in...

Though I disagreed with some of his presentation and Q&A I found his critique of "new atheism" very much in line with concerns I have about it. The show is still running and I wish I'd recorded it/took notes, but I didn't. He did have some interesting comments about Hitchens and his support for the Iraq war and what I would call an embrace of "social Lamarkism" by new atheists. Even while I disagreed with some of what he said, I agreed with a lot of what he did.

Here's the Book TV link (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9285&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No) and I wish it was availible for download.

I'm predicting this OP will get a number a knee-jerk militant reactions without ever seeing the presentation or otherwise investigating Hedges' writings/thoughts.

hgc

27th April 2008, 07:16 AM

I'm in the dark about this "new atheism." What's new?

Showmeproof

27th April 2008, 07:17 AM

Showmeproof

27th April 2008, 07:23 AM

I'm in the dark about this "new atheism." What's new?

I asked the same question right below you, but found a very brief answer on amazon.

"new atheists who brand all religious belief as irrational and dangerous."

I just read the brief review that amazon gives of his book. And though he makes a case against atheist funadamentalists, he also makes a case against religious fundamentalists. At leas the book is not one sided. Have to give him respect for that.

hgc

27th April 2008, 09:20 AM

I asked the same question right below you, but found a very brief answer on amazon.

"new atheists who brand all religious belief as irrational and dangerous."

I just read the brief review that amazon gives of his book. And though he makes a case against atheist funadamentalists, he also makes a case against religious fundamentalists. At leas the book is not one sided. Have to give him respect for that.

Ah, so not new atheism, but rather, as the original quote says, new atheists. It's not "fundamentalist" in a way that is symmetric to fundamentalist religion. It's more of a new success for public atheists who are stridently critical about religion that is a counter to the historic monopoly that disdain for non-belief has had on public discourse.

Even if I don't like the tenor of everything that Hitchens or Dawkins says (and I like them both), I am heartened that they are helping to make the view from atheism something that can at least gain a spot in the public discourse.

For instance, even though much of what Hitch would rant about in regards to the historic crimes of religion are completely irrelevant to the veracity of theism, deism or atheism, it's a discussion I welcome. My regret is mainly that people are getting confused about what informs an atheist's worldview (mine, anyway). It's not because millions have suffered under the boot of religion that I know deities don't exist. It may be a useful counterpoint to the absurdity that one should believe in gods because how terrible it'll be if we don't have a purpose in life, or whatever folderol, but it's just side issues to core worldview.

slingblade

27th April 2008, 10:03 AM

What the hell is wrong with my knee?

Gord_in_Toronto

27th April 2008, 10:30 AM

What the hell is wrong with my knee?

I don't know, but the late lamented Jean Shepherd used to complain about his knee hurting on his all-night radio show on WOR about 40 years ago. Do you suppose there is some connection? :jaw-dropp

slingblade

27th April 2008, 11:19 AM

I don't know, but the late lamented Jean Shepherd used to complain about his knee hurting on his all-night radio show on WOR about 40 years ago. Do you suppose there is some connection? :jaw-dropp

You'll shoot your eye out! :eek:

qayak

27th April 2008, 12:02 PM

qayak

27th April 2008, 12:05 PM

I have not read this book but I did spend more than half an hour scanning through it at Blackbond Books last week. Simply put, another book that misrepresents atheists. And not a very well written one at that.

Foster Zygote

27th April 2008, 12:20 PM

Having read both Dawkins and Hitchens on this subject I don't see how either could qualify as "new atheists". Both most certainly find religion to be irrational, and they both speak of the potential for great danger. But they definitely acknowledge that people can do good things in the name of religion. Neither has called for the attempted elimination of religion as inherently dangerous, only for the critical examination of its negative aspects.

KingMerv00

27th April 2008, 12:30 PM

JoeEllison

27th April 2008, 12:42 PM

qayak

27th April 2008, 01:13 PM

There's not much in the way of logical arguments against atheism, so it becomes a complaint about "style", whether the complaint is accurate or not.

Exactly!

shadron

27th April 2008, 01:54 PM

New Atheist: 1) an atheist with a book on the bestseller list, esp. where religion feels it must respond to the atheist's reason with lies and innuendo 2) an atheist with an argument that religion has no answer for 3) an atheist who states their beliefs out loud

Sounds like Madeline Murray O'Hare, to me, except she didn't write a book. Would arguing a successful Supreme Court case against prayer in schools count?

IMHO, a new atheist is one who arguments are current. There is no denying that there has been a sudden rise in the amount of discussion of atheism in the last, say, 5 years, mainly due to the books, which is more of a publishing phenomenon than new ideas or even new people involved. Had Asimov had a publisher who would have published an anti-god book in the 60s or 70s, I'm sure he would have obliged; he wrote about everything else under the sun, and he was an outspoken, even occasionally vehement, atheist.

Ehh, let's take a look again in 20 years and see where we've gone.

shadron

27th April 2008, 01:57 PM

What the hell is wrong with my knee?

If it weren't for your whole purple body bouncing around, I'd say you had a small knee spasm, there. :)

Showmeproof

27th April 2008, 01:58 PM

articulett

27th April 2008, 03:59 PM

--new atheist: an atheist who doesn't pretend that faith is good or ennobling...

one who treats faith woo like all other woo...

same as the old ones but a little more vocal thanks to the internet where irrational people can't throw things at you...

New atheist tend to be a lot more scientifically literate thanks to advances in science as well... we've had a chance to practice against the blow hards-- creationists, etc.

Meadmaker

27th April 2008, 05:52 PM

It doesn't look like a great book, but skimming the excerpt on amazon.com, I loved one line of it, enough to share. See below.

negativ

27th April 2008, 06:03 PM

http://www.zombietime.com/hitchens-hedges_debate/

Link and run!

quixotecoyote

27th April 2008, 06:03 PM

It doesn't look like a great book, but skimming the excerpt on amazon.com, I loved one line of it, enough to share. See below.

The sin quote?

It's internally inconsistent. Sin is only an coherent concept in a universe where gods exist. If you don't think there's anything to worry about from people who don't believe in god, then it follows that you don't think there's anything to worry about from people who don't believe in sin.

quixotecoyote

27th April 2008, 06:06 PM

http://www.zombietime.com/hitchens-hedges_debate/

Link and run!

That's some wacky stuff right there.

Also, since when is Hitchens a neo-con?

negativ

27th April 2008, 06:22 PM

Also, since when is Hitchens a neo-con?

The commentary on the Zombietime site is extremely tongue-in-cheek. Not to be taken internally.

fuelair

27th April 2008, 06:23 PM

Perfectly all right, I don't believe in Hedges!!

Damien Evans

27th April 2008, 06:27 PM

articulett

27th April 2008, 06:29 PM

I don't believe in "sin"... it's a religious concept... who defines a sin? I believe it's wrong to hurt others-- but I don't see blasphemy or drinking on Sundays or homosexuality as sins or harmful or anything. Sin in what way? I think scaring kids with hell is wrong, but I wouldn't call it a sin--

Meadmaker

27th April 2008, 06:50 PM

The sin quote?

It's internally inconsistent. Sin is only an coherent concept in a universe where gods exist. If you don't think there's anything to worry about from people who don't believe in god, then it follows that you don't think there's anything to worry about from people who don't believe in sin.

Yeah. The sin quote.

I went back and read the entire excerpt this time, and I would not call it great writing. However, I wish a better writer would take his ideas and write them better. There is much wisdom in what he writes, including in the sin quote.

articulett

27th April 2008, 07:05 PM

I've never harmed anyone that I know of... I think that by most measures of morality I'm right up on top... but if my disbelief in "sin" scares people, then maybe that's good. I bet Randi doesn't believe in "sin" either.

There's tragedy and cruelties and ways of treating people that are things we'd never want done to ourselves or our loved ones-- but sin sounds like something someone's god defines by proxy via his mortal spokespeople, doesn't it? "Original sin".

I sure as hell don't believe in "original sin"--
I wonder if that would make me scary to the author.

Gord_in_Toronto

27th April 2008, 07:09 PM

Perfectly all right, I don't believe in Hedges!!

Then what do you call that thing that consists of a lot of bushy shrubs planted close together in a line? An Atheist? :D

MattusMaximus

27th April 2008, 07:43 PM

In reference to the thread title...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_774747fc3d4ebb8e1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11661)

Do you believe in me now?! ;)

quixotecoyote

27th April 2008, 07:48 PM

Yeah. The sin quote.

I went back and read the entire excerpt this time, and I would not call it great writing. However, I wish a better writer would take his ideas and write them better. There is much wisdom in what he writes, including in the sin quote.

Sin, unless redefined into something completely different, refers to falling short of God's standards. "To miss the mark." If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in God's standards.

If it's ok to disbelieve in God, why is it not ok to disbelieve in his standards?

articulett

27th April 2008, 07:54 PM

In reference to the thread title...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_774747fc3d4ebb8e1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11661)

Do you believe in me now?! ;)

Ha! I'd like to see their omnipotent sky buddy pull THAT off.

UnrepentantSinner

27th April 2008, 07:59 PM

It seems to me that the main criticism of atheists, when you boil it down, is that they are vocal. That's IT. There's not much in the way of logical arguments against atheism, so it becomes a complaint about "style", whether the complaint is accurate or not.

You're right. That is the main criticism of atheists in America, but that wasn't what Hedges was talking about in his presentation. From what I could tell he had no problem with vocal atheists, or Muslims or Hindus etc. He was concerned about the "us vs. them" mentality expressed by some "new atheists" who see religion as a disease to be eradicated, not as simply another worldview. See Merv's comment above. I really wish C-SPAN made the show availible for download because IMO his book and the extant on-line comments don't do his position justice (and, again, I disagree with some things he said, I agree with his main premise though).

And I'm not surprised that the usual cadre of knee-jerk militants showed up in this thread with their usual (and in Arti's case, endless) tired spiels. Hedges, during his speech, talked about his father, a WW II veteran who engaged in the civil, feminist and gay rights movements as they blossomed. He also talked about his personal theology and how he didn't believe in the "Jesus as my best friend" gospel preached by so many who simultaneously decry abortion and homosexuality while calling for the nuking of Mecca. I'm sure, stripped of religious discussion, that every one of the usual suspects would agree with Hedges on most of his political and social positions.

Odd that.

JoeEllison

27th April 2008, 08:11 PM

He was concerned about the "us vs. them" mentality expressed by some "new atheists" who see religion as a disease to be eradicated, not as simply another worldview.

Well, they are right as far as I can see, but that doesn't make it "us vs them"... so the criticism is that they supports a viewpoint that people find uncomfortable to deal with? :)

UnrepentantSinner

27th April 2008, 08:30 PM

Well, they are right as far as I can see, but that doesn't make it "us vs them"... so the criticism is that they supports a viewpoint that people find uncomfortable to deal with? :)

Well, I don't agree with that, but holding the mere viewpoint I will merely argue against. What Hedges is arguing, and something I agree with is that the viewing of religious people as Untermenschen is problematic. I guess my viewing of Hotel Rwanda is too fresh in my mind where dehumanizing people who are just like you except for one undiscernable to outsiders aspect was the basis for genocide has me concerned about some of the rhetoric I hear/read sometimes. Not that I think we atheists will go crazy and start offing folks for religious belief, but mindset is disconcerting to me.

As always, YMMV :)

articulett

27th April 2008, 08:39 PM

Well, they are right as far as I can see, but that doesn't make it "us vs them"... so the criticism is that they supports a viewpoint that people find uncomfortable to deal with? :)

They have to see atheists as doing the "us against them" thing because their a little chagrined that the atheists are pointing out that the Emperor is not wearing clothes-- never has actually... and those claiming to see clothes are probably liars or delusional.

The faithful are used to not having their faith scrutinized... they are used to feeling humble as they judge others and feel holier than thou for believing in divine truths obtained via subjective means... they don't like that others are no longer feeling cowed into deference-- that the atheists are exercising the free speech rights that those of the dominant paradigm have taken for granted. They've learned that it's arrogant to question god-- and by proxy his believers-- but the atheist finds it arrogant to presume you are "in on" divine truths and saved because you believe the right unbelievable story. And the atheist has a good point.

But they'll adapt... sure they need to see us as the bad guys... easier than wondering if we have a point-- but perhaps they will learn to keep their beliefs as private as they want non believers to keep their lack of belief. And maybe they'll even get a clue as to what atheism is... and maybe they'll find people they trusted that told them atheists were evil aren't as trustworthy as they thought. I worked my way through it once I had access to such thinking.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods...it's identical to all the woo the religionists don't believe in. It's threatening for them to realize that people find their beliefs as unsupportable as all the woo the religionists dismisses. They'll fuss and fight to feel more special and moral and encourage atheist bigotry and stereotyping... some people gain a lot of power via being god's spokesperson, after all.... and then society will move forward... as it always does in these kinds of things. Though religion tends to battle knowledge and progress each step of the way.

People are much more likely to kill in the name of some belief rather than the lack of belief... and there is no such thing as being to rational. But you know theists... they love to feel like they are being persecuted as they oppress folks left and right.

qayak

27th April 2008, 09:15 PM

They have to see atheists as doing the "us against them" thing because their a little chagrined that the atheists are pointing out that the Emperor is not wearing clothes-- never has actually... and those claiming to see clothes are probably liars or delusional.

Actually, it is even worse than that. the atheists are not only pointing out there are no clothes, they are pointing out that there is no emperor either. Theists are starting to realize that they have been worshipping a big, fat zero.

And they are mad as hell!

articulett

27th April 2008, 09:20 PM

Actually, it is even worse than that. the atheists are not only pointing out there are no clothes, they are pointing out that there is no emperor either. Theists are starting to realize that they have been worshipping a big, fat zero.

And they are mad as hell!

Indeed... and all the endless bluster is just an attack on the messenger so as not to hear the message. How disappointing that reality turns out to be less enchanting than the delusion going in their head.

Meadmaker

28th April 2008, 04:57 AM

Sin, unless redefined into something completely different, refers to falling short of God's standards. "To miss the mark." If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in God's standards.

If it's ok to disbelieve in God, why is it not ok to disbelieve in his standards?

The problem is that in throwing out God, it seems that people sometimes throw out the standards that they associated with God. It's so easy to replace the notions of good and evil with a feeling that whatever you think is best for the world ought to be the way the world behaves.

GreyICE

28th April 2008, 05:13 AM

I don't believe in atheists Well fortunately, unlike God, I don't require faith to exist.

I will check that out. That would seem to echo some of my concerns about the 'movement.' I can't help remembering college, and the atheist movement on campus (college...). Probably worth checking out, though the summary probably is that if you limit your thinking with any sort of absolutes about intangibles (like belief, or lack thereof) you're crazy.

GreyICE

28th April 2008, 05:15 AM

Jekyll

28th April 2008, 05:21 AM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th April 2008, 05:28 AM

Perhaps "in your face atheists"?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th April 2008, 05:30 AM

articulett

28th April 2008, 05:46 AM

Pedophiliac clergy come to mind?

So who are the "in your face" atheists... are they "in your face" any more than the Pope or Fred Phelps or the guy on the corner handing out bible tracts and telling us we're all going to hell? Are they more in your face than DOC or Radrook? Than Pat Robertson? What does it mean "in your face"-- vocal with your viewpoints?

pgwenthold

28th April 2008, 07:16 AM

I'm sure some small percentage of atheists "throw out the standards." I wonder what percentage of religious people also throw out the standards and then beg forgiveness for doing so?

It's not only that. It is also the case that people will chose their religion based on their standards and prejudices, as opposed to vice versa. See the whole "salad bar" christianity phenomenon. Some christians are anti-gay. Others are more liberal, and therefore not anti-gay. Etc, etc, etc. Do you really think they learned that from their religion? Or are they interpreting religion to support their views?

The accusation that non-believers "throw out the standards" and chose guidelines arbitrarily is for one, baseless, and for two, a good laugh considering the arbitrariness of chosing religion in the first place.

I have alway said, my morals are just as "absolute" and "objective" as any religious person's. The place we differ is in the choice of the SOURCE for that morality, and in that case, we are equally subjective. They chose "god" as their source of morality. I chose "Bill and Ted" as mine. From there, all else flows.

Meadmaker

28th April 2008, 08:18 AM

Not to double post, but this is EXACTLY how religion works.

I agree. So does Hedges.

GreyICE

28th April 2008, 08:49 AM

I agree. So does Hedges.
Then why bother with religion? Most people's judgments of morality are relative and they apply them like absolutes. Theists are just less likely to admit it.

shadron

28th April 2008, 09:54 AM

The problem is that in throwing out God, it seems that people sometimes throw out the standards that they associated with God.

And so, instead, even if I don't believe in god then I still need to incorporate his standards into my life as an objective standard? Hardly. It's all very well to define sin as "falling short of god's standard", but he doesn't communicate well without priests or preachers or Pat Robertson in between, so what it actually means is transgressing the more-or-less explicitly stated taboos of the church in question. In Catholicism, they are laid down in Canon law, and that's why it used to be a sin to eat meat on Friday, or to play hooky from Sunday Mass, or to go to a movie that was on the graded list that the Catholic Register used to publish; for other religions it is much less well defined than that, but no less arbitrary.

It's so easy to replace the notions of good and evil with a feeling that whatever you think is best for the world ought to be the way the world behaves.You imply that the world actually "works" through the religious sin ethic, and that anything else is inappropriate for making decisions with. I think you will need to prop that up with some proof before I'll consider not eating meat again on Friday, or whatever modern promulgation (say, no artificial birth control methods) is in the Roman Curia's multi-noggin. Sorry, but no to that.

Civilized Worm

28th April 2008, 10:32 AM

What is "social lamarckism"?

Meadmaker

28th April 2008, 02:04 PM

And so, instead, even if I don't believe in god then I still need to incorporate his standards into my life as an objective standard? Hardly. It's all very well to define sin as "falling short of god's standard", but he doesn't communicate well without priests or preachers or Pat Robertson in between, so what it actually means is transgressing the more-or-less explicitly stated taboos of the church in question. In Catholicism, they are laid down in Canon law, and that's why it used to be a sin to eat meat on Friday, or to play hooky from Sunday Mass, or to go to a movie that was on the graded list that the Catholic Register used to publish; for other religions it is much less well defined than that, but no less arbitrary.

You imply that the world actually "works" through the religious sin ethic, and that anything else is inappropriate for making decisions with. I think you will need to prop that up with some proof before I'll consider not eating meat again on Friday, or whatever modern promulgation (say, no artificial birth control methods) is in the Roman Curia's multi-noggin. Sorry, but no to that.

One of the most common complaints here on JREF is that Christians et. al. claim that without God, there can be no morality. Most atheists reject that notion out of hand.

One has to recognize, though, that without some notion of immorality, there can be no notion of morality. I don't care whether you call immorality sin, or evil, or negative energy, or whatever you wish to call it, but the concept that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live is essential to having a decent society.

Hedges is warning that just because more and more of us have set aside religion, we should not think that somehow we have changed human nature. Humanity is perfectly capable of immense evil, with or without religion. We ignore that at our peril. The quote that is now part of my sig is one way to make that warning. Belief in God doesn't really matter, but if we reject the concept of evil, on the grounds that such notions are inherently religious, we risk allowing evil to flourish.

GreyICE

28th April 2008, 02:22 PM

Darth Rotor

28th April 2008, 02:24 PM

Hedges is a frequent contributor to antiwar.com, a writer who often presents a refreshing alternative to the mainstream tripe pumped out each day.

Let me offer an alternative to the defensiveness demonstrated in the replies to this thread, and summarize Hedges' position in a different light:

You are not required to be an ******** to be an atheist.

DR

shadron

28th April 2008, 05:04 PM

articulett

28th April 2008, 05:35 PM

Well, of course they (we) do. As I what is the purpose of upholding god's standards when there isn't such?

Why does that imply that the dichotomy good/evil no longer should make sense? I don't know of any atheist philosophy that says so, though I am no expert in that philosophy. Basic, rough morality is ensconsed in law, which comes from men, not god. Beyond that we still have consciences, and we have a duty to each other and the world we live in to inform and exercise them. What leads you to believe that that may not be the case? Is the proportion of muggers higher in atheists than christians? the number of divorcees?

Nope... religiosity is associated with more societal dysfunction and born agains have among the highest divorce rates in the US:

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

I think religion makes people think they are more moral than those who don't believe what they do... and they think they are getting their morals from "god"--but they appear to be getting their morals through genes, culture, and imitation... just like everyone else-- and saying it comes from god. They've been taught to believe that you can't be moral without god and so they see everything good as "god related" and toss straw men and vilify the critic when someone points to faith leading to atrocities... plus theists promote the big lie that atheists are immoral because you can't be moral without "god"... and they imagine this evil by hearing "militancy" in everything the atheist says.

I think it's just a bunch of angry nothingness like when Francine (Sylvia Browne's lackey) babbles about Sylvia not taking the challenge because Randi isn't a man of god-- blah, blah, -excuses--, Uri Geller blaming the "pressure people are putting on him"-- etc. A lot of words said, to avoid having to hearing that that we (atheists) are tired of listening to the people claiming to speak for god or some other authority. We choose our own role models. The critics are peeved that we haven't chosen them. And we don't see the evidence that the critics and the faithful are as moral and tolerant as they seem to imagine themselves.

qayak

28th April 2008, 07:05 PM

One of the most common complaints here on JREF is that Christians et. al. claim that without God, there can be no morality. Most atheists reject that notion out of hand.

One has to recognize, though, that without some notion of immorality, there can be no notion of morality. I don't care whether you call immorality sin, or evil, or negative energy, or whatever you wish to call it, but the concept that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live is essential to having a decent society.

Actually, the problem with your two points here is that they are completely unconnected and that is what religious people do not get. Their belief in a god does not make them better peoeple, morally speaking, than an atheist is without god. In fact, it makes it much easier for religious people to be morally inferior.

Hedges is warning that just because more and more of us have set aside religion, we should not think that somehow we have changed human nature. Humanity is perfectly capable of immense evil, with or without religion. We ignore that at our peril. The quote that is now part of my sig is one way to make that warning. Belief in God doesn't really matter, but if we reject the concept of evil, on the grounds that such notions are inherently religious, we risk allowing evil to flourish.

That's not what I get from Hedges or the people on this forum who make this ridiculous argument over and over. First off, why do atheists, or anyone else, need to be warned here? The only reason we would need the warning is if morality really does come from god, or if these religious nuts really believe that it comes from god. So stop pretending that you don't believe it. And while you're at it, show us some evidence to back up your ridiculous claim. Show us the superior morality as found in the bible, koran, or any other religious text.

Second, everyone knows that humans are capable of evil with or without religion but the fact remains that it is far more likely to happen under the authority of organized religion. That is something you won't hear Hedges or any other religious person admit to. Atheists have cast off one of the most immoral of all human institutions.

Third, no one has rejected the concept of evil. Morality is the study of good and evil, in case you didn't know. Atheists are perfectly aware of this. The difference is that atheists put the onus for morality where it belongs, on the individual human making the choice. Hedges and others here seem to think that there is some benefit to be gained by looking to a make believe, supernatural being for moral guidance and allowing that being to take the credit for good and another make believe being to take the blame for the bad.

The point I am making is that atheists do not need "warnings" from religious nutbars. Our moral compass is far superior to the one provided by their god or their ignorant texts.

articulett

28th April 2008, 07:39 PM

We don't need "warnings" from apologists either telling us that we need to "believe in sin" or in "evil". It's wrong to cause sentient beings to suffer-- more so for "ideals" and invisible gods or imagined afterlives. It's good to share and cooperate and raise each other up with education and empowerment and knowledge and truth and laughter. It's easy. You don't need to make it into a story involving Emperor's and magical robes that only the super duper can see. Nobody needs to get their morality nor their advice from the people who imagine themselves called to hand it out. We can find out our role models.

Those who want to be those role models without our consent have their panties in a bunch. They are used to just appealing to the authority of "faith"-- and they don't know what to do when we dismiss them or ask for evidence or find them unworthy profferers of "advice" or "moral dictates".

Where are all these people made moral by religion? If religion is supposed to make people more moral, why don't any studies show this? Why are the people I find most honest, helpful, intelligent, and admirable less likely to be religious?

When my husband was dying, the religious folks "prayed" for us. It didn't work. My atheist, agnostic, secular, and assorted new age-ish friends were there buying groceries, watching my kid, taking my husband to chemo--pulling over so he could throw up, etc.

Where were the people who are more moral because of faith? Where?? Who are they. The ones bleating their faith or apologizing for it on this forum don't seem to be an especially spectacular crowd, I must say. Any extra morality seems to be entirely in their heads. Or perhaps the moral faithful ones are all around they're just not telling us we need to be more like them at every opportunity and giving veiled threats or "warnings" as to why.

Meadmaker

28th April 2008, 08:13 PM

Hedges and others here seem to think that there is some benefit to be gained by looking to a make believe, supernatural being for moral guidance and allowing that being to take the credit for good and another make believe being to take the blame for the bad.

Does he? You might be right. I haven't read his book. I've read a few paragraphs on amazon.com. I can't tell from those few paragraphs if he is religious or not. I assume he must be, because he was debating Hitchens. Regardless of his religious beliefs, in the "sin" quote, he is quite specifically disavowing the moral guidance of the supernatural being.

I haven't read the books by Hitchens and Harris. Of the recent atheist bestsellers, I have only read "The God Delusion". From discussions, I get the feeling that it was the least preachy of the three, but in it I saw some of what Hedges seems to be getting at. There was a belief in science and rationality, and a hopeful view that with the vanquishment of religion, a great new day would dawn where all the evils spawned by religion would be swept away.

Hedges is skeptical, and I think with good reason. It didn't work so well in 1789, and there's not a lot of reason to think it will this time.

Be that as it may, I don't want to defend the book very much. I haven't read it. I don't intend to read it. Judging from the intro, it doesn't look all that good. Judging from the reviews, he doesn't portray Dawkins', Harris', or Hitchens' views very accurately. I am simply saying that in the introduction, there are a few good lines, especially, in my humble opinion, the one from my sig. I do think that his core message, that mankind must constantly engage in self examination and reject the fundamentalist notion that there is one right and proper way to believe is a very good idea, whether for atheists or believers.

Meadmaker

28th April 2008, 08:16 PM

The point I am making is that atheists do not need "warnings" from religious nutbars. Our moral compass is far superior to the one provided by their god or their ignorant texts.

I think Hedges would say, and I would tend to agree, that the people to be feared are those who congratulate themselves on the superiority of their own moral compass, as compared to their neighbors.

qayak

28th April 2008, 08:31 PM

I think Hedges would say, and I would tend to agree, that the people to be feared are those who congratulate themselves on the superiority of their own moral compass, as compared to their neighbors.

Give me a break. Next you will be telling me that I shouldn't judge other people.

We judge the morals of other people all the time, or at least we should. If you are telling me that your morality is based on your religion, I will also be judging your religion.

But I think you hit the nail on the head here. Both you and Hedges live in fear. Fear that your religion will be examined, that your moral basis is not sound, and that your world of religious righteousness is about to be thrown into a state of Higgledy Piggledy. :D

The fact is Mead, everyone thinks their morals are superior or at least they should. If they don't then they are morally obligated to find the best ones.

Meadmaker

28th April 2008, 08:36 PM

Give me a break. Next you will be telling me that I shouldn't judge other people.

Quite the contrary. I think it's critical. But you should also judge yourself.

Aside from the moral level, you might even find that some things you believe to be true, aren't.

articulett

28th April 2008, 08:43 PM

Meadmaker, I suspect you posted on this thread because of your congratulations to yourself over your moral superiority involving your apologetics for faith.

Take your own advice... "you might even find that some things you believe to be true, aren't".

Jon.

28th April 2008, 09:51 PM

Let me offer an alternative to the defensiveness demonstrated in the replies to this thread, and summarize Hedges' position in a different light:

You are not required to be an ******** to be an atheist.

True enough. However, there are far too many theists* who think that politely questioning their beliefs, or gently mocking them, or even asking that lack of belief be accorded the same respect as they ask for their beliefs, is "be[ing] an ********". This is the "spell" that must be broken, to cop a phrase from Dan Dennett.

*I am not accusing anyone in particular of this, and specifically not accusing you, DR, or Hedges, whose book I have not read.

MattusMaximus

28th April 2008, 09:53 PM

The problem is that in throwing out God, it seems that people sometimes throw out the standards that they associated with God. It's so easy to replace the notions of good and evil with a feeling that whatever you think is best for the world ought to be the way the world behaves.

This is a common misconception espoused about atheism by those who don't really understand the position.

For more detail on how to formulate a moral worldview based upon atheism, I would recommend the following book to all on this thread...

"Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe" (http://www.amazon.com/Value-Virtue-Godless-Universe-Wielenberg/dp/0521607841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209444394&sr=8-1) by Erik J. Wielenberg

Whether you're religious or not, it is a very good read - a bit thick at times, but worth it. The thing that is nice is that Wielenberg writes it in a very non-confrontational manner, acknowledging that both believers (specifically Christians in his book) and non-believers can each formulate moral outlooks on life without having to trash the others'.

Case in point, here is the last paragraph of the book:

"But one does not have to be a theist, much less a Christian, to recognize that the tendency towards selfishness is at the same time one of the most entrenched as well as the most pernicious features of human nature. Naturalist and theist alike should acknowledge that one of the greatest challenges we face is the dark heart within ourselves. To combat this heart of darkness, Christianity recommends surrender to God; Mill recommends developing a sense of unity with mankind; Kant recommends making the requirements of morality our top priority; Singer recommends devoting oneself to the reduction of suffering; I have recommended putting science to use in the Platonic quest for a reliable way of making people virtuous. These are all forms of a common struggle - the struggle against the selfishness inherent in human nature. Perhaps, then, this is one struggle in which we are all on the same side. Long live the ethical revolution."

For what it's worth...

Meadmaker

29th April 2008, 04:49 AM

"But one does not have to be a theist, much less a Christian, to recognize that the tendency towards selfishness is at the same time one of the most entrenched as well as the most pernicious features of human nature. Naturalist and theist alike should acknowledge that one of the greatest challenges we face is the dark heart within ourselves. To combat this heart of darkness, Christianity recommends surrender to God; Mill recommends developing a sense of unity with mankind; Kant recommends making the requirements of morality our top priority; Singer recommends devoting oneself to the reduction of suffering; I have recommended putting science to use in the Platonic quest for a reliable way of making people virtuous. These are all forms of a common struggle - the struggle against the selfishness inherent in human nature. Perhaps, then, this is one struggle in which we are all on the same side. Long live the ethical revolution."

For what it's worth...

I think that the above is saying something very like what Hedges was saying, but Weilenberg said it better.

One exception, though, is that Hedges would almost certainly object to Weilenberg's own quest, to use science to find "a reliable way of making people virtuous." I'm not exactly sure what he means, but if anyone says he has found such a way, and it must be imposed on the non-virtuous in order to make them virtuous, I strongly suggest asking many, many, questions before accepting that he is correct.

articulett

29th April 2008, 05:43 AM

Science can test what works and what doesn't. Religion doesn't enhance morality. Nobody has found a reliable way of making people virtuous... it's why we have laws and prisons... but religion claims to aid the process when there is no evidence that this is so.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

What is it that is working in countries that have the fewest social problems? We can investigate. It sure isn't religion.

joobz

29th April 2008, 06:09 AM

qayak

29th April 2008, 03:57 PM

One exception, though, is that Hedges would almost certainly object to Weilenberg's own quest, to use science to find "a reliable way of making people virtuous." I'm not exactly sure what he means, but if anyone says he has found such a way, and it must be imposed on the non-virtuous in order to make them virtuous, I strongly suggest asking many, many, questions before accepting that he is correct.

There are so many issues with your statement here. First, what is wrong with forcing someone to conform to a moral position because it is based on science instead of religion? I mean, religion has a long and bloody history of imposing its morality on EVERYONE else. The thing about science is that it has built in correcting mechanisms which is far better than anything religion is capable of offering.

Second, what better discipline to turn to than science. It is science that is making all the strides in the modern world. Science is breeding modern philosophers and thinkers as well. It would seem that science is best suited to do what you fear. You must realize that your fear is based on your knowledge and experience with religion. Assuming science would cause the same suffering in humanity seems odd.

Third, many people have begun to look to science for their ideas on morality. Michael Shermer in The Science of Good and Evil. Carl Sagan in many of his books and articles. Richard Feynman in his books, etc. etc. Why wouldn't we want the most brilliant minds working on the issues that arise through their experiments and discoveries in science?

articulett

29th April 2008, 04:12 PM

Yes... don't we want people who are healing their kids via "faith" to turn to science? Why shouldn't we expect people to use the best tools available for understanding their world and taking care of each other?

GreyICE

30th April 2008, 12:51 PM

qayak

30th April 2008, 03:27 PM

I think the wrong comes in when you force somebody to conform to any sort of moral position. That makes you a hell of a lot more dangerous to my personal freedoms than many theists, and I consider your brand of atheism worse than weak theism.

It's just rebuilding God, with a different name. All the other Gods were fallible, but this one reveals the truth. This one creates a moral code that you should all live by. This one tells us all about the universe.

Which is funny. You've chosen to name your new deity Science, which is absurd. Science is currently the name of a methodology of gathering information and testing hypotheses. Science is not the name under which you should impose your morality on someone else because it's superior.

Nice try. You can turn this around to point at me but none of it applies. Everyday we are forced to accept a certain level of morality . . . period. I think that morality is much better when it is based on the knowledge gained from an understanding of the real world than it is when it is based on the make believe rantings of some religious nutbar.

The reason I feel religion is so dangerous is for exactly the reason you point out. They are constantly trying to force their BS opinions on the rest of the world and claiming it is the "moral thing to do." They also have no correction mechanism. The catholic church is a perfect example of how much damamge stupidity disguised as morality can cause and what happens when there is no error correcting mechanism built in.

So, yeah, the minimum morality that all of us runs up against in society absolutley should come from the knowledge and system of science.

Civilized Worm

30th April 2008, 03:35 PM

So does no one have any idea what "social lamarckism" is?

GreyICE

30th April 2008, 03:46 PM

Nice try. You can turn this around to point at me but none of it applies. Everyday we are forced to accept a certain level of morality . . . period. I think that morality is much better when it is based on the knowledge gained from an understanding of the real world than it is when it is based on the make believe rantings of some religious nutbar.

The reason I feel religion is so dangerous is for exactly the reason you point out. They are constantly trying to force their BS opinions on the rest of the world and claiming it is the "moral thing to do." They also have no correction mechanism. The catholic church is a perfect example of how much damamge stupidity disguised as morality can cause and what happens when there is no error correcting mechanism built in.

So, yeah, the minimum morality that all of us runs up against in society absolutley should come from the knowledge and system of science.

But this blatantly does not work. Science, in the actual meaning of the word( I have no idea what you are using) refers to the scientific method. It's a method of testing hypotheses and gathering information. It's very good at that.

So what's missing? Purpose. Science has no purpose. It is a process. You can scientifically determine what the most efficient light bulb is. Or which light bulb improves the health of indoor plants. Or which light bulb gives off a spectrum of light closest to the sun's.

What can't you determine? What the best light bulb is. Science has no definition of best. It doesn't acknowledge it, measure it, conceive of it, or in any way interact with it. Any morality you achieve through a method you call scientific is just your value judgments. They'd just have more paper behind them. And you'd force your value judgments on me, in the name of scientific progress.

You are just as bad as any fundamentalist. They would force their value judgments on me in the name of religion, you would do it in the name of science. But in both cases, it is just a personal value judgment that would be forced on me. The only danger is that because your religion is newer than their religion, people might not have recognized it for what it is.

CapelDodger

30th April 2008, 04:56 PM

I've never harmed anyone that I know of...

I have, but they were asking for it. I have never gratuitously harmed anyone, just because I can. But if someone tries to screw over me or mine, I will gleefully screw them over worse if I can. Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so.

(Please excuse me hanging my thoughts on your post :). It's not meant confrontationally.)

"New atheism" is a reaction to a new, activist religiosity. We didn't start it. Religion and science can co-exist, and did until quite recently. Science hasn't invaded the religious realm, but fundies have invaded ours. Now they're whining about our devastating response. F*** 'em. They asked for it.

The Selfish Gene is not an atheist tract; religion doesn't enter into it. Dawkins didn't start this - they did. Now they're reaping the whirlwind.

qayak

30th April 2008, 08:36 PM

But this blatantly does not work . . . {SNIP}

I think you are blinded by your misinterpretation of what I have said. You are not making much sense in your posts. There are certain moral issues which every society deals with, it is a necessity of humans living together. They are minimum moral judgements, like the abortion issue I mentioned above. These are the moral issues I am talking about, societal moral issues. Your personal morality is yours to get wherever you wish. You can take it from religion, from science or from your butt, it isn't my concern but the better moral judgements for society, and for personal use, come from science.

50 years ago the prevailing opinion was that science had no place in ethics or morality. Turns out that opinion was wrong and great strides have been taken in those areas by scientists using the knowledge gleaned from science.

MattusMaximus

30th April 2008, 08:41 PM

There are so many issues with your statement here. First, what is wrong with forcing someone to conform to a moral position because it is based on science instead of religion? I mean, religion has a long and bloody history of imposing its morality on EVERYONE else. The thing about science is that it has built in correcting mechanisms which is far better than anything religion is capable of offering.

I understand what you're trying to get at here, qayak, but you must be very careful how you phrase it. First off, what exactly do you mean by "forcing" someone to conform based upon science? Do you "force" someone through government action? Threat of arrest? Or do you do it by peer pressure and/or argumentation?

I can understand the objections of some on this thread to your phrasing here. I'm an atheist and will argue vehemently for my philosophical position (yes, I consider atheism to be a philosophical worldview, not a scientific one) and for how morality fits into and flows from that position; I will also attempt to "force" others to at least acknowledge and respect my position using certain methods.

However, I would never advocate more draconian methods of "force" beyond persuasion, dialogue, and debate. I value freedom of choice and conscience too much to go down that road.

Second, what better discipline to turn to than science. It is science that is making all the strides in the modern world. Science is breeding modern philosophers and thinkers as well. It would seem that science is best suited to do what you fear. You must realize that your fear is based on your knowledge and experience with religion. Assuming science would cause the same suffering in humanity seems odd.

I agree that the process of modern science is becoming a viable option for understanding and promoting morality. However, our understanding of these issues is in its infancy, imo. That doesn't mean that I think we should stop scientific investigation into these issues (in fact, I am a strong advocate for more science in this arena) but I think we also need to acknowledge our vast ignorance on the topic.

That said, I have formulated my moral outlook based on a non-theistic and non-religious worldview. This comes as much from philosophy as it does from science.

As for science possibly causing suffering, I think it is a wrongly worded question. Science as a process is amoral - our actions based upon our knowledge is what comprises a morally good or bad thing. For example, chemistry can be used to create drugs which heal or poison gas used in deathcamp chambers - does this make chemical science inherently good or evil? I think the question is silly, actually.

Third, many people have begun to look to science for their ideas on morality. Michael Shermer in The Science of Good and Evil. Carl Sagan in many of his books and articles. Richard Feynman in his books, etc. etc. Why wouldn't we want the most brilliant minds working on the issues that arise through their experiments and discoveries in science?

Yes, these are all good examples of science beginning to address the issue of morality. I suspect that the more we learn about neuropsychology and consciousness, the more we'll begin to probe a deeper and more scientific understanding of morals and ethics as well.

I eagerly look forward to following developments in this field.

GreyICE

30th April 2008, 08:44 PM

I think you are blinded by your misinterpretation of what I have said. You are not making much sense in your posts. There are certain moral issues which every society deals with, it is a necessity of humans living together. They are minimum moral judgements, like the abortion issue I mentioned above. These are the moral issues I am talking about, societal moral issues. Your personal morality is yours to get wherever you wish. You can take it from religion, from science or from your butt, it isn't my concern but the better moral judgements for society, and for personal use, come from science. You mean science can provide information for making better moral judgments? True. Obviously science can provide information about the results of societal morals. But it doesn't make those morals scientific, scientifically based, or in any way endorsed by science. They are simply arbitrary moral rules with more information about their effects.

In the case of abortion, we can learn that the illegalization of abortion does not necessarily stop all abortions, and results in the deaths of many women seeking illegal abortions. Whether this is worth the fact that abortion indisputably terminates a pregnancy that would have resulted in a viable infant is a moral issue. Not a scientific one.

50 years ago the prevailing opinion was that science had no place in ethics or morality. Turns out that opinion was wrong and great strides have been taken in those areas by scientists using the knowledge gleaned from science.And yet it makes those ethics and morals no more scientific.

As an analogy, science can study the effects of a belief in alien abductions. They might study two groups of people who believe in aliens, one who believes that aliens are abducting humans for scientific experiments, another who believes that the aliens are abducting them to bring them to a better world to prevent some catastrophy from wiping out the human species.

Science might show many things about the effects of those beliefs on people's lives. But like abortion, science will ultimately never say which belief is more legitimate.

MattusMaximus

30th April 2008, 08:44 PM

So does no one have any idea what "social lamarckism" is?

No idea, but I must say that I think that's a wicked avatar. Care to provide context? (PM me so that we don't derail the thread)

qayak

1st May 2008, 12:04 AM

In the case of abortion, we can learn that the illegalization of abortion does not necessarily stop all abortions, and results in the deaths of many women seeking illegal abortions. Whether this is worth the fact that abortion indisputably terminates a pregnancy that would have resulted in a viable infant is a moral issue. Not a scientific one.
And yet it makes those ethics and morals no more scientific.

No, it is much deeper than that and you can find the arguments, as put forth by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, on the internet. there are others as well.

As an analogy, science can study the effects of a belief in alien abductions. They might study two groups of people who believe in aliens, one who believes that aliens are abducting humans for scientific experiments, another who believes that the aliens are abducting them to bring them to a better world to prevent some catastrophy from wiping out the human species.

Science might show many things about the effects of those beliefs on people's lives. But like abortion, science will ultimately never say which belief is more legitimate.

Science would ultimately say, and in fact has said, that these beliefs are both equally false, neither is legitimate.

As for abortion, science puts the issues in context. All arguments used to reject abortion can be examined and all arguments used to support it can be examined. For instance, your idea that "abortion indisputably terminates a pregnancy that would have resulted in a viable infant" can be shown to be false.

1) Not all pregnancies make it to term.

2) You cannot know which pregnancy would make it to term.

3) Even a full term pregnancy does not guarantee a viable infant.

Conclusion: Your statement is false and cannot be used to support a ban on abortion.

qayak

1st May 2008, 12:26 AM

I understand what you're trying to get at here, qayak, but you must be very careful how you phrase it. First off, what exactly do you mean by "forcing" someone to conform based upon science? Do you "force" someone through government action? Threat of arrest? Or do you do it by peer pressure and/or argumentation?

I never said that so I can't argue against it. I asked: "First, what is wrong with forcing someone to conform to a moral position because it is based on science instead of religion? "

It is not their conformity that is based on science, it is th esocietally accepted moral position that is based on science. I will use the abortion issue again. That position, in the form of a law, is forced upon everyone. I am asking why it is not okay to enforce a law based on science and reason as opposed to religion?

I can understand the objections of some on this thread to your phrasing here. I'm an atheist and will argue vehemently for my philosophical position (yes, I consider atheism to be a philosophical worldview, not a scientific one) and for how morality fits into and flows from that position; I will also attempt to "force" others to at least acknowledge and respect my position using certain methods.

I am an atheist as well. I do not see it as a world view at all. It is simply a non-belief in any deity. My world view is based largely on what I learned from the teachings of scientists and scientific philosophers if you will.

However, I would never advocate more draconian methods of "force" beyond persuasion, dialogue, and debate. I value freedom of choice and conscience too much to go down that road.

I am not advocating anything more than is already done. If you restrict someone else's right (let's use abortion again) to seek an abortion, you will be prosecuted. The fact that the law is based on scientific knowledge and understanding hardly makes a difference here.

I agree that the process of modern science is becoming a viable option for understanding and promoting morality. However, our understanding of these issues is in its infancy, imo. That doesn't mean that I think we should stop scientific investigation into these issues (in fact, I am a strong advocate for more science in this arena) but I think we also need to acknowledge our vast ignorance on the topic.

I acknowledge that there is a long way to go and we have a vast ignorance of all the implications BUT . . . science has already far surpassed religions in the realm of social morality.

That said, I have formulated my moral outlook based on a non-theistic and non-religious worldview. This comes as much from philosophy as it does from science.

I used the term "scientific philosophers" earlier. To me, this is simply a person with a deep understanding of the subject along with good reasoning and communications skills. Although I have read many of the old philosophers, I find them completely irrelelvent to modern issues. Like Richard Feynman said, and I paraphrase, "Philosophers are still arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and scientists have had to become the new philosophers." That is were I turn for insight into modern issues.

As for science possibly causing suffering, I think it is a wrongly worded question. Science as a process is amoral - our actions based upon our knowledge is what comprises a morally good or bad thing. For example, chemistry can be used to create drugs which heal or poison gas used in deathcamp chambers - does this make chemical science inherently good or evil? I think the question is silly, actually.

I agree completlely. However, I think that humans, in general, tend to be good and I think scientists being better educated and having a wider world view, are more so. This, along with the self correcting mechanisms of science make it head and shoulders above religion for deciding moral issues.

Yes, these are all good examples of science beginning to address the issue of morality. I suspect that the more we learn about neuropsychology and consciousness, the more we'll begin to probe a deeper and more scientific understanding of morals and ethics as well.

I eagerly look forward to following developments in this field.[/QUOTE]

GreyICE

1st May 2008, 03:55 AM

No, it is much deeper than that and you can find the arguments, as put forth by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, on the internet. there are others as well. Examples? No, you're wrong, [insert appeal to authority] doesn't work well.

Science would ultimately say, and in fact has said, that these beliefs are both equally false, neither is legitimate. No it hasn't. Skepticism might throw doubt on them, but all science does is test testable claims. As long as they aren't making any, science says "What am I doing here?"

Same with morality. Science only tests testable claims. Doesn't say whether the system is overall bs or not.

As for abortion, science puts the issues in context. All arguments used to reject abortion can be examined and all arguments used to support it can be examined. For instance, your idea that "abortion indisputably terminates a pregnancy that would have resulted in a viable infant" can be shown to be false.

1) Not all pregnancies make it to term.

2) You cannot know which pregnancy would make it to term.

3) Even a full term pregnancy does not guarantee a viable infant.
1) Statistically, the vast majority of pregnancies make it to term

2) The vast majority of pregnancies that make it to term in the United States result in a health, living infant

3) Therefore, while we cannot say in a specific case that pregnancy has resulted in one less healthy infant (and in some cases, like ectopic pregnancy, we can firmly say it does not) the vast majority of abortions on the whole, indubitably do.

I'm okay with this. You, apparently, are not.

Conclusion: Your statement is false and cannot be used to support a ban on abortion.
No, it's true. Whether or not you use it to support a ban on abortion is a moral judgment.

qayak

1st May 2008, 07:41 AM

Examples? No, you're wrong, [insert appeal to authority] doesn't work well.

I don't think you understand the appeal to authority fallacy. I didn't say they were right because of who they are, I stated that you could read the arguments in their article on abortion on the internet. That you choose not to means you are guilty of an agrument from ignorance fallacy.

No it hasn't. Skepticism might throw doubt on them, but all science does is test testable claims.

Yes, and the arguments religious people give for not allowing abortion are all testable and science has already done so.

Same with morality. Science only tests testable claims. Doesn't say whether the system is overall bs or not.

Many of the arguments on morality issues, the majority probably, are testable

1) Statistically, the vast majority of pregnancies make it to term

2) The vast majority of pregnancies that make it to term in the United States result in a health, living infant

3) Therefore, while we cannot say in a specific case that pregnancy has resulted in one less healthy infant (and in some cases, like ectopic pregnancy, we can firmly say it does not) the vast majority of abortions on the whole, indubitably do.

Well, this is a different kettle of fish. You stated before that all pregancies would lead to a viable child. You are already moving the goal posts. That's what a little bit of information from science will do.

I'm okay with this. You, apparently, are not.

I am perfectly okay that religions have been pushed back to a position that is acceptable to the majority of people.

No, it's true. Whether or not you use it to support a ban on abortion is a moral judgment.

Well, your old statement is false, your new one might be true but I haven't looked at it very closely, so I am not convinced. I am late for work right now so it will have to wait.

pgwenthold

1st May 2008, 09:00 AM

GreyICE

1st May 2008, 09:17 AM

FWIW, about 15-20% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage. Of them, 80% would have been nonviable ultimately, but they did start as pregnancy. This does not include fertilized eggs that do not implant.

Nice of God, isn't it, to make you pregnant but with something so genetically bad that it can't even survive the uterus?
Of course the majority of those occur in the first 6 weeks, so they wouldn't have been aborted anyway.

Once again, I'm not saying abortion is murder, or anything like that (murder is a value judgment in any case). I'm saying that most of the pregnancies aborted would have eventually become healthy infants.

articulett

1st May 2008, 09:23 AM

FWIW, about 15-20% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage. Of them, 80% would have been nonviable ultimately, but they did start as pregnancy. This does not include fertilized eggs that do not implant.

Nice of God, isn't it, to make you pregnant but with something so genetically bad that it can't even survive the uterus?

I think it's actually higher when they examine menstrual fluid for fertilized ovum. If god exists, he's a big time abortionist... and apparently he does make mistakes contrary to popular opinion.

He's a very wasteful deity, as well.

(It was nice, though, that he forced the Austrian woman trapped as her dad's sex slave to pop out babies for him while letting the horror go on unabated for 24 years.)

pgwenthold

1st May 2008, 10:17 AM

I think it's actually higher when they examine menstrual fluid for fertilized ovum.

Right. These would be the "fertilized eggs that don't implant" that I mentioned.

My numbers are basically for confirmed pregnancies. Believe me, I am learning a lot about it right now (wifey just passed 2 months along - an early ultrasound looks great!)

If god exists, he's a big time abortionist... and apparently he does make mistakes contrary to popular opinion.

He's a very wasteful deity, as well.

I agree. Even if they aren't "viable" that get miscarried, the fact that 20% of actual pregnancies fail tells you it's not a great process.

GreyICE

1st May 2008, 11:08 AM

I don't think you understand the appeal to authority fallacy. I didn't say they were right because of who they are, I stated that you could read the arguments in their article on abortion on the internet. That you choose not to means you are guilty of an agrument from ignorance fallacy. You can read arguments that prove those arguments wrong on the internet.

My authority has a bigger e-peen than your authority.

Yes, and the arguments religious people give for not allowing abortion are all testable and science has already done so. Hmm? Abortion is murder is testable? How?

Many of the arguments on morality issues, the majority probably, are testable
Once again, test abortion is murder. Please. I would love to see that test.

Well, this is a different kettle of fish. You stated before that all pregancies would lead to a viable child. You are already moving the goal posts. That's what a little bit of information from science will do. Okay, I was guilty of a hasty generalization. It still doesn't negate the essential argument, just weighs it down with qualifiers.

I am perfectly okay that religions have been pushed back to a position that is acceptable to the majority of people.
Context. See, quote out of.

Well, your old statement is false, your new one might be true but I haven't looked at it very closely, so I am not convinced. I am late for work right now so it will have to wait. I'm not convinced you're very convincing.

Moochie

1st May 2008, 12:51 PM

Ah, so not new atheism, but rather, as the original quote says, new atheists. It's not "fundamentalist" in a way that is symmetric to fundamentalist religion. It's more of a new success for public atheists who are stridently critical about religion that is a counter to the historic monopoly that disdain for non-belief has had on public discourse.

Even if I don't like the tenor of everything that Hitchens or Dawkins says (and I like them both), I am heartened that they are helping to make the view from atheism something that can at least gain a spot in the public discourse.

For instance, even though much of what Hitch would rant about in regards to the historic crimes of religion are completely irrelevant to the veracity of theism, deism or atheism, it's a discussion I welcome. My regret is mainly that people are getting confused about what informs an atheist's worldview (mine, anyway). It's not because millions have suffered under the boot of religion that I know deities don't exist. It may be a useful counterpoint to the absurdity that one should believe in gods because how terrible it'll be if we don't have a purpose in life, or whatever folderol, but it's just side issues to core worldview.

I think the "new atheism" is the "old atheism" that's cottoned on to the fact that there's serious money to be made whilst advancing the "cause" of nonbelief.

I don't mind any of it -- it's about time the "other side" got a slice of the pie that woo has had pretty much to itself for most of the time. And if it gets some to even begin to question their belief in fantastical things, all the better.

M.

qayak

1st May 2008, 05:39 PM

Hmm? Abortion is murder is testable? How? Once again, test abortion is murder. Please. I would love to see that test.

That's the best you've got? You really should do at least a little bit of research before opening your pie hole.

Murder is a legal term and abortion doesn't fit the criteria required to label it murder. that's why it's called abortion. In other words, it fails the test to qualify it as murder.

Thanks for coming out today.

Okay, I was guilty of a hasty generalization.

Why are you telling me? I already knew that.

I'm not convinced you're very convincing.

Oh, come on! You know I am right. Go ahead admit it, I won't think less of you than I already do. :D

articulett

1st May 2008, 05:51 PM

Abortion is the term for terminating something... in this case a pregnancy... spontaneous abortions (or god's abortions) are miscarriages. Therapeutic abortions are for the woman. A fetus that cannot survive absent the use of another's body is not considered a person. It would be on par with forcing people to give up kidneys so that other people could live. Clearly this needs to be a choice. The same with allowing a fetus to use your body.

It is not murder when you refuse to let your body be used to save the life of another who depends upon it. Murder is willfully ending someone's life... it is not refusing to let them rent your body so that their life can continue.

After reading greyICE in your post, gayak, I am reminded why I have him on ignore. It's very pleasant for me, since I'm only privy to his self important silliness when it's being smacked down by a poster I enjoy. :D

articulett

1st May 2008, 05:57 PM

Right. These would be the "fertilized eggs that don't implant" that I mentioned.

My numbers are basically for confirmed pregnancies. Believe me, I am learning a lot about it right now (wifey just passed 2 months along - an early ultrasound looks great!)

I agree. Even if they aren't "viable" that get miscarried, the fact that 20% of actual pregnancies fail tells you it's not a great process.

Hey, I'm sorry to hear about your loss. And I know it's probably even harder for your wife.

It's so common... an yet so, so painful.

ETA... sorry... I just reread... I thought you had experienced a loss...

Congratulations... moreso if you've seen a heart beat and wife is nauseated (both good signs.)

Meadmaker

1st May 2008, 06:33 PM

Murder is a legal term and abortion doesn't fit the criteria required to label it murder. that's why it's called abortion. In other words, it fails the test to qualify it as murder.

When did we switch from science to law?:confused:

So, in the United States, abortion isn't murder, but in Saudi Arabia it is? Somehow, qayak, I think you missed the point of GreyIce's question.

GreyICE

1st May 2008, 06:59 PM

That's the best you've got? You really should do at least a little bit of research before opening your pie hole.

Murder is a legal term and abortion doesn't fit the criteria required to label it murder. that's why it's called abortion. In other words, it fails the test to qualify it as murder.

Thanks for coming out today. From Wikipedia: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought.

Commence!

The quibble points are obviously unlawful, and malice. If we removed them, the rest really comes down to value judgment (and unlawful, in terms of abortion, is obviously relative).

Oh, come on! You know I am right. Go ahead admit it, I won't think less of you than I already do. :D
Your argument as to why I'm wrong that you came up with after an entire day is... this?

:jaw-dropp

Darth Rotor

1st May 2008, 07:26 PM

Darth Rotor

1st May 2008, 07:28 PM

There are so many issues with your statement here. First, what is wrong with forcing someone to conform to a moral position because it is based on science instead of religion?

In a word, forcing. Beyond that, if you can show how its better, the world will flock to your door.

DR

Darth Rotor

1st May 2008, 07:32 PM

My numbers are basically for confirmed pregnancies. Believe me, I am learning a lot about it right now (wifey just passed 2 months along - an early ultrasound looks great!)

Please forgive the derail: congrats to you both. :)

qayak

1st May 2008, 10:42 PM

In a word, forcing. Beyond that, if you can show how its better, the world will flock to your door.

Which still doesn't explain why it is okay to force them to believe if the moral position is based on religion.

Rasmus

1st May 2008, 11:08 PM

qayak

2nd May 2008, 12:09 AM

From Wikipedia: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought.

Commence!

The quibble points are obviously unlawful, and malice. If we removed them, the rest really comes down to value judgment (and unlawful, in terms of abortion, is obviously relative).

Even simpler, my dictionary says murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. There are no quibble points. it is not unlawful, the fetus is not a human being and it isn't a killing, it is the termination of a pregnancy.

However, none of this is an enforced morality which is what we are arguing about here. The enforced part of abortion is simply that you cannot restrict anyone else from exercising their right to an abortion, even when that abortion is based on the knowledge and reasoning of science. You are free to believe anything you want about abortion itself.

In fact, religion based morality is much more restrictive than science based morality. Religions would outlaw abortion and force everyone to abide by the rule. Science based morality allows for pretty free access to abortion but allows almost everyone to decide what is right for them. No one is ever forced to have an abortion simply because it is legal.

GreyICE

2nd May 2008, 08:24 AM

Even simpler, my dictionary says murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. There are no quibble points. it is not unlawful, the fetus is not a human being and it isn't a killing, it is the termination of a pregnancy. Unlawful is clearly a non-entity in terms of science. We could pass a law that it was illegal to be effected by the earth's gravitational field. We could pass a law that said it would be illegal to teach evolution. Unlawful is a non-starter. It's recursively defined - something is unlawful if we call it unlawful, it has no innate characteristics.

Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of.

The fetus was made of living tissue. At the end of the procedure, the tissue is dead. This seems reasonably indisputable.

So the last point you're left with quibbling is whether the fetus is a human being. I mean it has its own unique DNA code (unless its a twin/triplet or an implanted clone, to give you your qualifiers). And it will become a human life, with decent odds (say 15% chance of miscarriage max, in the usual abortion period (since most happen in the first six weeks, which is often not even enough time to realize you're pregnant, and not just late) and 0.64% chance of being part of infant mortality (running 6.4 per thousand in the US). Is it a human being? What does science say?

However, none of this is an enforced morality which is what we are arguing about here. The enforced part of abortion is simply that you cannot restrict anyone else from exercising their right to an abortion, even when that abortion is based on the knowledge and reasoning of science. You are free to believe anything you want about abortion itself.
Hmm? How is this based on science?
In fact, religion based morality is much more restrictive than science based morality. Religions would outlaw abortion and force everyone to abide by the rule. Science based morality allows for pretty free access to abortion but allows almost everyone to decide what is right for them. No one is ever forced to have an abortion simply because it is legal. No, that's philosophical-based morality. Not science. The philosophy being the Ninth Amendment, which is not based on science at all.

pgwenthold

2nd May 2008, 09:10 AM

Hey, I'm sorry to hear about your loss. And I know it's probably even harder for your wife.

It's so common... an yet so, so painful.

ETA... sorry... I just reread... I thought you had experienced a loss...

Congratulations... moreso if you've seen a heart beat and wife is nauseated (both good signs.)

No, we haven't had any loss (knock on wood!). And indeed, we saw a heartbeat last Monday. It still makes me cry. I didn't get a chance to watch the ultrasound video yesterday, unfortunately, but I will be sure to watch it again this weekend!

My wife has been pretty good in the morning sickness aspect. She has had her moments, but it's been relatively mild. She is lucky, but her sisters were pretty much the same way, so it's probably genetic. Keep in mind that about 1/3 of women don't really experience morning sickness.

I know a lot about the losses, though, because some of the other mommies we are interacting with these days are miscarrying about now. So this is getting to be right to the most critical time. However, I heard a comment this morning that if you can see a heartbeat, then the MC rate drops to something like 3%. Little Baby's heartbeat was a strong 158. My wife is older, and so is a little high risk, but so far, so good!

westprog

2nd May 2008, 09:14 AM

Unlawful is clearly a non-entity in terms of science. We could pass a law that it was illegal to be effected by the earth's gravitational field. We could pass a law that said it would be illegal to teach evolution. Unlawful is a non-starter. It's recursively defined - something is unlawful if we call it unlawful, it has no innate characteristics.

Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of.

The fetus was made of living tissue. At the end of the procedure, the tissue is dead. This seems reasonably indisputable.

So the last point you're left with quibbling is whether the fetus is a human being. I mean it has its own unique DNA code (unless its a twin/triplet or an implanted clone, to give you your qualifiers). And it will become a human life, with decent odds (say 15% chance of miscarriage max, in the usual abortion period (since most happen in the first six weeks, which is often not even enough time to realize you're pregnant, and not just late) and 0.64% chance of being part of infant mortality (running 6.4 per thousand in the US). Is it a human being? What does science say?

Hmm? How is this based on science? No, that's philosophical-based morality. Not science. The philosophy being the Ninth Amendment, which is not based on science at all.

All that science can do is give us information. It can't direct us on our behaviour. This was given a good workout in the "Faith leads to Evil" thread. Science can tell us that a fetus is genetically human, but developmentally capable of very little. It can't direct us as to what value we put on those factors.

Mobyseven gave "Human life is sacred" as a possible basis of a moral system. But this is itself a matter of definition. Any moral system can simply exclude or include a fetus - or Jews, or Dolphins, or any other possible grouping - based on personal preference, or supposed divine revelation. Science can inform that choice, but it cannot dictate it.

westprog

2nd May 2008, 09:24 AM

It seems you and the quote are buying into the nihilst straw-man of atheism. That those who become atheists have a tendancy to be nihilsts, valuing nothing over anything else. And as a result, give away their sense of moral character. I haven't seen any reason to believe that this is the case.

I've noticed that atheists - at least self-proclaimed atheists rather than people who don't have any particular beliefs - tend to have quite a reasonably developed moral sense. I just don't know why they do.

Meadmaker

2nd May 2008, 09:44 AM

Even simpler, my dictionary says murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. There are no quibble points. it is not unlawful, the fetus is not a human being and it isn't a killing, it is the termination of a pregnancy.

As others have pointed out, science can't really say anything about morality, because it is inherently neutral about value judgements. It just says what is real and what isn't.

Of course, science can be used to judge claims made in support of various value judgements. You have made three, above. They are bolded below.

1. Abortion is not unlawful. Of course, this isn't a question for science at all. In some jurisdictions it is lawful. In others, it is not. The legal process makes the claim, possibly informed by scientific data, or not. It really doesn't matter.

2. The fetus is not a human being. Science can describe a fetus quite precisely. For example science can tell us that a fetus is a unique, living, organism of the species "homo sapiens". Whether or not there are additional qualifications before a member of "homo sapiens" can be called a "human being" is outside the realm of science.

3. It isn't killing. Science can tell us that the fetus was alive before the procedure, and dead afterwards. A procedure which changes that state sounds like a killing to me. The definition of "human being" is problematic, but "killing" is pretty straightforward, and abortion involves killing. There's really no way around that.

So, of the three claims, the first is a matter of law, not science. The second is a matter of semantics. Science can tell us certain things about the claim, but it can never decide the matter. The third is one that can be answered by science, and has been. You are simply wrong about the answer.

And this is the danger that Hedges warned of, that people, hiding behind a mantle of science, would proclaim themselves morally superior to the rest of the world. Never mind that they often misuse science, engaging in pseudoscience more often than the real thing.

Meadmaker

2nd May 2008, 09:47 AM

. No one is ever forced to have an abortion simply because it is legal.

And of course you surely don't need to have it pointed out that there are in fact places in the world where people are forced to have abortions, and the government that endorses such practices is an atheistic government, proclaiming a scientific justification for the policy.

GreyICE

2nd May 2008, 10:16 AM

I've noticed that atheists - at least self-proclaimed atheists rather than people who don't have any particular beliefs - tend to have quite a reasonably developed moral sense. I just don't know why they do.

My experience is it's the true meaning of the quote in my signature:
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

It's typically taken as a declaration of anarchy. What it is, instead, is a recognition of responsibility. When we were children, our parents (or at least mine) told us to eat healthy. When we matured, we realized healthy food made us healthier, and we are responsible for our food choices.

But when we were children, when we ate candy, we were getting away with something. We figured out ways to eat candy instead of vegetables, took great joy in getting tons for Halloween, etc. Now that we can buy 10x the amount we got for Halloween every month with ease we eat much less.

When we realize that there is no law, no authority, beyond ourselves, we take responsibility for our actions. There is no law, beyond Do what thou wilt.

Jon.

2nd May 2008, 11:14 AM

True enough. However, there are far too many theists* who think that politely questioning their beliefs, or gently mocking them, or even asking that lack of belief be accorded the same respect as they ask for their beliefs, is "be[ing] an ********". This is the "spell" that must be broken, to cop a phrase from Dan Dennett.

*I am not accusing anyone in particular of this, and specifically not accusing you, DR, or Hedges, whose book I have not read.

I thank you for that Jon, but have some confusion with the italicized part. I think we are on the same page, but having not read Dennett, may be missing a point. Can you elaborate a bit on that?

As to the mocking or teasing, heck, one needs a thick skin regardless of belief, position, philosophy, or world view of any sort.

DR

What I was trying to say is that some theists get offended (or claim to) when atheists ask to, for instance, start an atheist or humanist club in a high school that has a bible study group. Also, the fact (for which I have no cites but lots of anecdotes) that "Darwin fishes" and the like seem to get torn off cars at a higher rate than ichthys symbols. These seem to me to be symptomatic of a lack of reciprocity of respect.

BTW, you should definitely read Dennett - I thought it (Breaking The Spell, that is) was better than The God Delusion. Dennett is actually a philosopher, for one thing.

articulett

2nd May 2008, 02:53 PM

However, I heard a comment this morning that if you can see a heartbeat, then the MC rate drops to something like 3%. Little Baby's heartbeat was a strong 158. My wife is older, and so is a little high risk, but so far, so good!

I cried when I heard my baby's heartbeat... I fell in love the instant I knew "he" was on the way... I just couldn't bear the thought of losing that baby... no matter how "imperfect" it might be. He's 19 now. It's amazing the human capacity to love. In the past when not all children were likely to survive to adulthood, I don't think humanity could have had the luxury of falling so deeply in love with their children. Now we can hear their heartbeats when they are just a few weeks old and become hugely blinded by love.

I wish all offspring could be so welcomed.

pgwenthold

3rd May 2008, 07:09 AM

I cried when I heard my baby's heartbeat... I fell in love the instant I knew "he" was on the way... I just couldn't bear the thought of losing that baby... no matter how "imperfect" it might be. He's 19 now. It's amazing the human capacity to love. In the past when not all children were likely to survive to adulthood, I don't think humanity could have had the luxury of falling so deeply in love with their children. Now we can hear their heartbeats when they are just a few weeks old and become hugely blinded by love.

I think I mentioned, I have a DVD of the Ultrasound. I like to watch it over and over and over...

I still cry.

articulett

3rd May 2008, 07:38 AM

Civilized Worm

3rd May 2008, 09:21 AM

pgwenthold

3rd May 2008, 10:02 AM

It's rather humbling... you just go around doing what you are inclined to do, and suddenly you realize you've done something totally wondrous-- you made a human! I remember the heartbeat so clearly. And I remember the moment I first heard him laugh... I made a human, and he laughs-- I thought. Totally cool.

Some day...

For now, I just keep envisioning that "little dude inside the big dude's head" in Men in Black.

vetmommy is a veterinarian and is used to seeing ultrasound, so she saw the heartbeat immediately. It took me a bit before I could comprehend it, but it was amazing! Actually, I just kind of looked at vetmommy and that's when I cried - that is happening inside her!

MattusMaximus

3rd May 2008, 03:38 PM

From Wikipedia: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought.

Commence!

Wow, gone a bit OT have we?

Ah well, in order to contribute my $0.02 (as if anyone gives a damn) here's my take on the whole abortion thing...

Whenever I hear someone say "Every life is sacred!" or something similarly sappy when they put forth their "pro-life" views, I simply have to roll my eyes :rolleyes:

If they really believed what they were saying, they wouldn't be wasting my time by bleating at me about how "Abortion is murder!" - they should instead be out feeding the hungry/homeless or trying to stop genocide in Darfur. Better yet, they should be willing to take into their own house, as adoptions, all the babies they save from abortion - including the ones with horrendous medical conditions who are doomed to die extremely painful deaths due to their birth defects.

If more "pro-life" activists took that attitude, I might still disagree with them, but at least I'd respect their consistency a bit more.

For me, bottom line is: If you disagree with abortion, don't have one. That's called choice, and I'm not about to make that choice for you.

PS: To be fair, I will also say that when I hear a "pro-choice" activist try to argue that a fetus isn't a "life", I also roll my eyes :rolleyes:

It is a life - just not a full-fledged human life. Admit it and admit that you're killing it, because it's pretty clear that by aborting it you're killing it. Even if you abort a days-old embryo, you're still killing a life (in the same sense that you're killing a bacterium, imo), but it isn't a human.

Pauliesonne

3rd May 2008, 03:41 PM

In response to the title, i've come up with this little "questionnaire "?

I don't believe in;

1) i don't believe in potatoes.

2) i don't believe in french people

3) i don't believe in anal sex

MattusMaximus

3rd May 2008, 03:45 PM

And of course you surely don't need to have it pointed out that there are in fact places in the world where people are forced to have abortions, and the government that endorses such practices is an atheistic government, proclaiming a scientific justification for the policy.

A valid point. And I have a problem with such policies for the same reason that I would have a problem with making all voluntary abortions illegal... this takes away the choice of the individual mother in question. If she wants to carry the pregnancy to term, so be it. If she doesn't, so be it. The government be damned, either way - they should butt the hell out.

MattusMaximus

3rd May 2008, 03:46 PM

In response to the title, i've come up with this little "questionnaire "?

I don't believe in;

1) i don't believe in potatoes.

2) i don't believe in french people

3) i don't believe in anal sex

What about having anal sex with a french man/woman while eating potato chips? ;)

ETA: Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

MattusMaximus

3rd May 2008, 03:50 PM

I've noticed that atheists - at least self-proclaimed atheists rather than people who don't have any particular beliefs - tend to have quite a reasonably developed moral sense. I just don't know why they do.

Two good books can help explain this to you...

The Science of Good & Evil (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Science-of-Good-and-Evil/Michael-Shermer/e/9780805077698/?itm=3) by Michael Shermer

and

Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Value-and-Virtue-in-a-Godless-Universe/Erik-J-Wielenberg/e/9780521607841/?itm=1) by Erik J. Wielenberg

Enjoy the reads!

articulett

3rd May 2008, 04:09 PM

I think those are excellent books, but I think you are showing misplaced faith if you think he'll read them. I think Marc Hauser has a new book on the topic called, "Moral Minds"-- it involves some pretty extensive testing and brain imaging.

I think Westprog has a strong need to believe that morality comes from religion... I'm not sure he's open to evidence that this may be a fallacy.

qayak

3rd May 2008, 04:43 PM

A valid point. And I have a problem with such policies for the same reason that I would have a problem with making all voluntary abortions illegal... this takes away the choice of the individual mother in question. If she wants to carry the pregnancy to term, so be it. If she doesn't, so be it. The government be damned, either way - they should butt the hell out.

But Mead hasn't gotten the facts right. The place Mead is talking about is China. People there are not required to have an abortion because abortions are legal. In fact, they are not required to have an abortion at all. They are only allowed one child because of the most serious of overpopulation problems. If they become pregnant a second time, they are not forced to have abortions but there are severe penalties. Many choose an abortion as a means of avoiding those penalties.

There have been cases of local officials forcing women to have abortions and the Chinese government has reacted rather strongly, arresting those officials and removing them from office. I also recall that there were several officials executed over their involvement years ago.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-admits-women-were-forced-to-have-abortions-507688.html

An official named Nong told National Public Radio that forcing women to undergo abortions against their will would be against the law. . .

The one child policy is based on a population crisis not atheism.

UserGoogol

3rd May 2008, 05:00 PM

What is "social lamarckism"?

I think it refers to memetics. I haven't read "I don't believe in atheists," but I've heard some criticisms of the idea from the anti-new-atheists crowd. It's Lamarckism rather than pure Darwinism because ideas are molded during the lifespan of a human being, thus with ideas a person can inherit the equivalent of a "giraffe's stretched neck" which is not the case with genes. Memetics is popular both with Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett so it's understandable that people would lump that in with "New Atheism."

Meadmaker

3rd May 2008, 06:29 PM

But Mead hasn't gotten the facts right. The place Mead is talking about is China. People there are not required to have an abortion because abortions are legal. In fact, they are not required to have an abortion at all. They are only allowed one child because of the most serious of overpopulation problems. If they become pregnant a second time, they are not forced to have abortions but there are severe penalties. Many choose an abortion as a means of avoiding those penalties.

There have been cases of local officials forcing women to have abortions and the Chinese government has reacted rather strongly, arresting those officials and removing them from office. I also recall that there were several officials executed over their involvement years ago.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-admits-women-were-forced-to-have-abortions-507688.html

The one child policy is based on a population crisis not atheism.

Of course it isn't based on atheism. It's based on science. Good science. Very easy to understand science.

ETA: And did you actually read the article you linked?

ETA2: In my post of a few days ago, I used the present tense when describing China's policies. According to the article qayak linked, I should have used the past tense. According to the article, China no longer has a policy of forced abortion or sterilization, although some local officials apparently didn't get the memo.

GreyICE

3rd May 2008, 06:55 PM

Wow, gone a bit OT have we?

Ah well, in order to contribute my $0.02 (as if anyone gives a damn) here's my take on the whole abortion thing...

Whenever I hear someone say "Every life is sacred!" or something similarly sappy when they put forth their "pro-life" views, I simply have to roll my eyes :rolleyes:

If they really believed what they were saying, they wouldn't be wasting my time by bleating at me about how "Abortion is murder!" - they should instead be out feeding the hungry/homeless or trying to stop genocide in Darfur. Better yet, they should be willing to take into their own house, as adoptions, all the babies they save from abortion - including the ones with horrendous medical conditions who are doomed to die extremely painful deaths due to their birth defects.

If more "pro-life" activists took that attitude, I might still disagree with them, but at least I'd respect their consistency a bit more.

For me, bottom line is: If you disagree with abortion, don't have one. That's called choice, and I'm not about to make that choice for you.

PS: To be fair, I will also say that when I hear a "pro-choice" activist try to argue that a fetus isn't a "life", I also roll my eyes :rolleyes:

It is a life - just not a full-fledged human life. Admit it and admit that you're killing it, because it's pretty clear that by aborting it you're killing it. Even if you abort a days-old embryo, you're still killing a life (in the same sense that you're killing a bacterium, imo), but it isn't a human. Oh, I'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying Science can't take sides either, or do very much more than add information to the debate.

P.S. If the fetus isn't human, what species is it?

qayak

3rd May 2008, 09:21 PM

Oh, I'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying Science can't take sides either, or do very much more than add information to the debate.

For this to be true, one would have to be able to make a case, based on science, that abortion is wrong because it is against god's wishes as many religious people claim.

In this sense, science really does take sides and points to a law, close to what we have now in the US and Canada, as being a great compromise.

qayak

3rd May 2008, 09:54 PM

Of course it isn't based on atheism. It's based on science. Good science. Very easy to understand science.

ETA: And did you actually read the article you linked?

ETA2: In my post of a few days ago, I used the present tense when describing China's policies. According to the article qayak linked, I should have used the past tense. According to the article, China no longer has a policy of forced abortion or sterilization, although some local officials apparently didn't get the memo.

Did you think that you could make an outlandish statement and I would forget what the points you were claiming are? You have lost the points of your own argument. You offered up the current situation in China as a rebuttal to my saying that women were not forced to get abortions simply because abortions were legally available. Nothing you have said here changes that.

You insinuated that the forced abortions were because of atheism and science. You have since retracted the atheism part but redoubled your claim about science. Please show me where the scientific basis for forced abortion is claimed by the Chinese government. I grant that they may have claimed a scientific basis for their "One child per couple" policy but that is a completely different matter. Even that would seem to have a basis in simple arithmetic.

slingblade

3rd May 2008, 10:07 PM

P.S. If the fetus isn't human, what species is it?

He didn't say it wasn't human. You left out the words "full-fledged." It's a life, and it's a human, but up to a certain point, it's more potential than actual.

Take a blastocyst. That's human, and it's alive, but it isn't yet a human life. It's a clump of rapidly dividing cells that can become a baby, given enough time and good conditions. But at this stage it is still only a clump of cells. If something dislodged it from the mother, it would exit the body and stop dividing. Non-division is cell death. And I wouldn't call it, if I could see it, a baby, a person, or a human life.

Ever hear of a miscarriage that produced little more than a 3 or 4 pound lump of cells, maybe some hair, fingernails, whatever...at one point, that was just as much "a baby" as anything else, but at some point it stopped being "a baby" even in potential, and ended up becoming just a random collection of cells and tissues that formed nothing viable. At what point did that stop being a human? I mean, all of its DNA is still obviously and completely human, but it's not a child, not a person.

I do not claim to know where that dividing line is, exactly, though I'm sure others do. Claim to know, that is.

I'm also pro-life, pro-choice. I don't like abortion as birth-control, but I am not about to tell some other woman or couple what to do. None of my business.

Meadmaker

3rd May 2008, 10:43 PM

Did you think that you could make an outlandish statement and I would forget what the points you were claiming are? You have lost the points of your own argument. You offered up the current situation in China as a rebuttal to my saying that women were not forced to get abortions simply because abortions were legally available. Nothing you have said here changes that.

You insinuated that the forced abortions were because of atheism and science. You have since retracted the atheism part but redoubled your claim about science. Please show me where the scientific basis for forced abortion is claimed by the Chinese government. I grant that they may have claimed a scientific basis for their "One child per couple" policy but that is a completely different matter. Even that would seem to have a basis in simple arithmetic.

In order to forget the points that I was claiming, you would have to have known what points those were. Your track record's not so good on that.

However, in this case, my points were expressed in a sufficiently weak manner that anyone could be forgiven for misunderstanding. I'll try again.

You were presented with a challenge to provide scientific backing (I think the actual phrase was "testable", but I would have to look) to prove or disprove the statement "abortion is murder". In attempting to answer that challenge, you made three claims about abortion; It is lawful; The fetus isn't a human being; and It isn't a killing. The first two claims aren't scientific. The first is legal, and it varies with jurisdiction. The second requires a definition which isn't available, and so can't be scientific. The third claim is just wrong.

You also said this:

In fact, religion based morality is much more restrictive than science based morality. Religions would outlaw abortion and force everyone to abide by the rule. Science based morality allows for pretty free access to abortion but allows almost everyone to decide what is right for them. No one is ever forced to have an abortion simply because it is legal.

It was this statement to which I was responding. You made the claim about "science based morality". I think you're simply wrong here. I don't think that allowing abortions is more "scientific" than disallowing them. Meanwhile, there is one government which, according to the article you linked, had a policy of actually requiring abortion, rather than allowing "almost everyone to decide what is right for them". How does that fit with "science based morality?" It ought to, because that government is not a religious government. It would seem that they ought to use scientific principles to guide their policies.

I must confess, I was unaware that the PRC no longer had a policy of forced abortion or sterilization. To be fair to me, according to the article you linked it seems that local officials sometimes still practiced that policy in their jurisdiction despite an official policy of not allowing such things. Therefore, the "outlandish claim" that I made was that the policy was still in effect, whereas the truth is that it is no longer official policy, although it still happens rarely. Oh, well, I guess I just don't keep up with the news all that well.

My real point is that no policy, whether allowing abortion, forbidding abortion, or requiring abortion, is more scientifically sound than the others. If you disagree with that statement, I would love to hear your argument.

HghrSymmetry

3rd May 2008, 11:18 PM

I've noticed that atheists - at least self-proclaimed atheists rather than people who don't have any particular beliefs - tend to have quite a reasonably developed moral sense. I just don't know why they do.

Theism or atheism doesn't necessarily have to be linked with morality.

Humans have evolved over the eons. The culture of group dynamics may have had an influence on the members treating themselves reasonably well.

A cheating, violent, uncooperative member usually doesn't receive much help and or support when in need.
Yes, of course there are people like that. Humans still fight, war, and kill. One of the outcomes of evolving from predators and the desire for resources. Fortunately, most people don't engage in those behaviors.

Yes, theism latched on to moral behavior and ascribed a supernatural source.
But is a meaningless, indescribable, impossible to understand entity a reasonable one? Especially if the motives are to avoid punishment or to gain reward...a rather petty motivation.

Perhaps the question isn't why atheists have a reasonable moral sense, but more appropriately, why do humans?

qayak

3rd May 2008, 11:33 PM

You were presented with a challenge to provide scientific backing (I think the actual phrase was "testable", but I would have to look) to prove or disprove the statement "abortion is murder". In attempting to answer that challenge, you made three claims about abortion; It is lawful; The fetus isn't a human being; and It isn't a killing. The first two claims aren't scientific. The first is legal, and it varies with jurisdiction. The second requires a definition which isn't available, and so can't be scientific. The third claim is just wrong.

Science starts with a clarification of the issue. In clarifying what the phrase "Abortion is murder" means, one immediately sees that there is nothing to test. The phrase fails on the definitions of "abortion" and "murder".

Abortion is not murder by definition. It is the termination of a pregnancy, either naturally or through a procedure.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being and a fetus is not a human being although it is human in the sense that it is made up of human material. A human is a man, woman or child and does not include fetus. Also, abortions are legal in the jurisdiction we are discussing so an abortion is not illegal.

Killing means to put an end to a person or an animal. We have already shown that a fetus is not a person and that it is not an animal (Probably why we call it a fetus!). We are putting an end to a pregnancy which does not qualify as killing or murdering.

It was this statement to which I was responding. You made the claim about "science based morality". I think you're simply wrong here. I don't think that allowing abortions is more "scientific" than disallowing them. Meanwhile, there is one government which, according to the article you linked, had a policy of actually requiring abortion, rather than allowing "almost everyone to decide what is right for them". How does that fit with "science based morality?" It ought to, because that government is not a religious government. It would seem that they ought to use scientific principles to guide their policies.

Well, this is assuming that the policy is based on science. It could just as easily be based on ignorance and was definitely based, to some extent, on a lack of concern for human rights. China has not been a big embracer of science and technology but has consistently shown a lack of concern for basic human rights.

My real point is that no policy, whether allowing abortion, forbidding abortion, or requiring abortion, is more scientifically sound than the others. If you disagree with that statement, I would love to hear your argument.

My argument to this is that science definitely points to certain policies over others. For instance, science in no way points to a policy that says abortion should be outlawed because it violates god's law. Science points to a law where an abortion is easy to obtain in the early stages of pregnancy, when most miscarriages happen and when it is safest for the mother, and to more restrictions being applied in later stages as the fetus becomes viable and eventually to a ban of late term abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

It must be remembered that the scientific argument doesn't just take into account the fetus and mother. It takes into consideration a lot of other issues as well. For instance, the fact that a law banning abortions does not stop abortions and that abortions obtained in back alleys are far more dangerous than ones done in hospital operating rooms. It is a compromise that recognises a woman's right to her own body and a minimizing of the risks associated with abortion.

I do not think that a scientific argument could ever point to an outright banning of abortions. There is just no basis for it. However, if you think it could be done, I would love to hear it.

P.S.- Thanks for the great discussions. I always like debates where the people care enough about their position to get at least a little heated.

GreyICE

4th May 2008, 06:01 AM

For this to be true, one would have to be able to make a case, based on science, that abortion is wrong because it is against god's wishes as many religious people claim. Huh? This is perhaps the definition of a strawman.

It's not surprising though, as it is impossible to argue that science takes sides without willful delusion. The arguments you have used to justify it prove my point - you haven't even come up with a good explanation of how abortion isn't murder, scientifically (except unlawful, which is a non-starter). Now science has to prove God? Wow. Just wow.

In this sense, science really does take sides and points to a law, close to what we have now in the US and Canada, as being a great compromise.
No, it doesn't. It provides information. You have chosen to interpret that information a certain way, and now claim science supports your position. It's no different than YECs claiming that science supports a 6000 year old earth. Selective reading of the data.

qayak

4th May 2008, 08:51 AM

No, it doesn't. It provides information. You have chosen to interpret that information a certain way, and now claim science supports your position. It's no different than YECs claiming that science supports a 6000 year old earth. Selective reading of the data.

You really believe this? If this is true, then why have scientists been able to debunk YEC? Why can't you debunk my position on abortion except to stamp your little foot, put your fingers in your ears and shout, "IS NOT! IS NOT!" in every post?

Morality is the study of right and wrong, usually with the purpose of finding out what is better or less harmfull for the most people, in most circumstances. With this as a guide, and using the knowledge of science, it is quite simple to come up with what is being called scientific morality.

This is why you cannot make a scientific defense of your "Abortion is Murder" claim. No matter how you cherry pick the evidence, or how many deceptions you use, scientific evidence doesn't point in your direction. Should you fabricate some theory, like the YEC did, then anyone understanding the evidence of science will be able to refute it.

My test of your theory did not fail. Your theory failed.

GreyICE

4th May 2008, 09:04 AM

You really believe this? If this is true, then why have scientists been able to debunk YEC? Why can't you debunk my position on abortion except to stamp your little foot, put your fingers in your ears and shout, "IS NOT! IS NOT!" in every post?Your position is that science says abortion should be legal, no supporting evidence necessary.

This isn't necessary to debunk. All I have to do is take the obvious, logically consistent position of "No it doesn't." Then it's up to the guy with the positive claim to supply the positive evidence.

I can't debunk your position any more than I can debunk the position that fairies live in the Michigan woods. They seem roughly equivalent in terms of logical rigor and supplied evidence.

Morality is the study of right and wrong, usually with the purpose of finding out what is better or less harmfull for the most people, in most circumstances. With this as a guide, and using the knowledge of science, it is quite simple to come up with what is being called scientific morality.You keep saying this like if you type it enough it becomes right. Science can definitely guide morality. But it's right around the point where you think that your morality is scientifically grounded and thus deserves to become law that I think you've traveled into crazy.

This is why you cannot make a scientific defense of your "Abortion is Murder" claim. No matter how you cherry pick the evidence, or how many deceptions you use, scientific evidence doesn't point in your direction. Should you fabricate some theory, like the YEC did, then anyone understanding the evidence of science will be able to refute it.

My test of your theory did not fail. Your theory failed.
I don't need to make a scientific defense of it. You're strawmanning again. My simple claim is that the position is a moral judgment that is outside of science, and unaffected by it. Your claim is that it can be judged scientifically.

My Scientific defense would actually be proving your claim. Interesting debate tactic, providing unsubstantiated claims then asking your opponent to prove them, and if he can't, you're right. One might almost say it was a tad unscientific.

Meadmaker

4th May 2008, 09:07 AM

It's no different than YECs claiming that science supports a 6000 year old earth. Selective reading of the data.

I do think this analogy is flawed. The YEC claim is only tenable if you ignore lots ot data. That is not the case with abortion positions. You could read all the data that is available, and still reach any conclusion regarding the morality or legality of abortion, because the core issue is simply not scientifically testable. Science can inform us what a fetus is, and what would happen if you kill it. It can't say whether or not doing so is moral.

As to what a fetus is, it is, among other things, a distinct living organism of the species "homo sapiens". Qayak apparently doesn't think that's enough to say that it is a "human being" or even an "animal". I can't say that he is right or wrong, from a scientific standpoint, because those words simply don't have accurate scientific definitions.

GreyICE

4th May 2008, 09:15 AM

I do think this analogy is flawed. The YEC claim is only tenable if you ignore lots ot data. That is not the case with abortion positions. You could read all the data that is available, and still reach any conclusion regarding the morality or legality of abortion, because the core issue is simply not scientifically testable. Science can inform us what a fetus is, and what would happen if you kill it. It can't say whether or not doing so is moral.

As to what a fetus is, it is, among other things, a distinct living organism of the species "homo sapiens". Qayak apparently doesn't think that's enough to say that it is a "human being" or even an "animal". I can't say that he is right or wrong, from a scientific standpoint, because those words simply don't have accurate scientific definitions. I wasn't speaking of abortion. I was speaking of his claim that science could prove that legal abortion was right, and indeed that science could tell you the correct moral position in any given situation.

I, personally, support a woman's right to abortion. But I do not claim my position is based on science. I am showing that even the most basic moral statements in the debate are very difficult to scientifically weigh in on.

In fact, there are a number of moral statements that are difficult to weigh in on, scientifically. Because science gathers data and disproves hypotheses. Nothing more.

articulett

4th May 2008, 09:50 AM

If science says anything in regards to family planning it's that it makes sense to encourage wanted children on a planet for whom every new person will be taking resources from people already here. China was forced into drastic action because every new child meant less food, less education, less living space, and less opportunity for employment for all the existent children... it's careless to others to bring children into the world that you cannot support... and society is good and right to take care of children who, after all, did not ask to be born. It's right to give all children health care, food, and an education... but somebody has to pay for that... and it's fair to ask those who must pay for such things to request that those having the children plan carefully. Isn't it fair to ask people to consider the children already on the planet before they birth another one-- rather than guilt them into having a child because "god demands it"?

When and if you don't plan carefully, nature or the government is compelled to do the job. We don't have the resources to care for an ever increasing number of children... it makes sense to encourage family planning... via whatever method... and to encourage the birth of children only to those who really want them. Socially responsible people have fewer children, and yet they are statistically more likely to produce socially responsible people. People who need governmental assistance are more likely to produce people who need governmental assistance... whether it's welfare, special education, mental facilities or prisons. If you are against abortion or contraception but your not willing to pick up the expense that results from this, you are part of the problem. Your judgments and proclamations don't do anything to solve the problem... it just makes you feel superior while being a pontificating jerk.

Educating people about this issue and options curtails a remedy like China. But nature isn't necessarily nice about how she controls populations either. Starvation is a biggie. And wars.

Science can point to statistics regarding policies that reduce suffering and policies that increase suffering. Religion pretends to know all about this stuff but produces the most inane and non helpful rhetoric and decrees on the subject that has no applicability in the real world.

It's inane and childish... just like the lovely quote of denial "I don't believe in atheists"... What you "believe in" doesn't affect what is true. Theists and apologists need to bone up on their thinking a little bit. They are sounding like the silly title of the OP.

Your opinions and beliefs do not translate to understanding or benefits in actual reality. The benefits appear to be in your head. Think before you post. You could further understanding of humanity if you weren't so sure that you already were.

qayak

4th May 2008, 12:40 PM

Your position is that science says abortion should be legal, no supporting evidence necessary.

Actually, the supporting evidence was in the article I suggested by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan which you refused to read, claiming it was an appeal to authority.

I think your error is in the idea that the tail is wagging the dog here. When I was a young man, I believed as you do, that all abortion was murder. Once I began looking at the real issues, it became obvious that there was a heck of a lot more to it than my simple belief could deal with. If anything, I had gone looking for an argument that would support my belief that abortion was murder but I never found that, no matter how hard I tried to twist the evidence.

After a lot of research on the subject I began to draw a different conclusion. I read all sides of the issue, legal, scientific, religious and the evidence pointed to something completely different than what I had believed up until that point.

However, like Slingblade, I am still pro-life in my own personal beliefs and pro-choice in my community beliefs. Abortion is never right for me but I will argue to my last breath that it should be freely available to those that want it.

Then, a few years ago, I bought a book by Carl Sagan (Billions & Billions) in which he and Ann Druyan put together the same basic argument I had used to arrive at my position that abortion is not murder and that the law as we know it is an excellent compromise. They added in a bunch of details and used better evidence to make a much clearer case but essentially it is the same. Funnily enough, the article was entitled "Abortion: Is It Possible To Be Both "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice?"

So, this is not a position that I held previously, it is not a position I got from cherry picking the evidence, and it is not a position I got because I admire Carl Sagan. It is a position I arrived at over several years and one that has held up for me when hard choices had to be made.

To bring this back on topic, I have always been an atheist. At no time in my life did I ever believe their was a god. I read the bible when I was in my early teens to see what my friends were so fired up about. I thought it was a terribly boring and silly book. That isn't surprising after reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and other such classics.

So, even an atheist can have the "abortion is murder" mindset. It doesn't take religion for that. It is the fact that I turned to science for my world view on issues that resulted in my current moral position on abortion.

GreyICE

4th May 2008, 01:08 PM

Actually, the supporting evidence was in the article I suggested by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan which you refused to read, claiming it was an appeal to authority.

I think your error is in the idea that the tail is wagging the dog here. When I was a young man, I believed as you do, that all abortion was murder. Once I began looking at the real issues, it became obvious that there was a heck of a lot more to it than my simple belief could deal with. If anything, I had gone looking for an argument that would support my belief that abortion was murder but I never found that, no matter how hard I tried to twist the evidence.

After a lot of research on the subject I began to draw a different conclusion. I read all sides of the issue, legal, scientific, religious and the evidence pointed to something completely different than what I had believed up until that point.

However, like Slingblade, I am still pro-life in my own personal beliefs and pro-choice in my community beliefs. Abortion is never right for me but I will argue to my last breath that it should be freely available to those that want it.

Then, a few years ago, I bought a book by Carl Sagan (Billions & Billions) in which he and Ann Druyan put together the same basic argument I had used to arrive at my position that abortion is not murder and that the law as we know it is an excellent compromise. They added in a bunch of details and used better evidence to make a much clearer case but essentially it is the same. Funnily enough, the article was entitled "Abortion: Is It Possible To Be Both "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice?"

So, this is not a position that I held previously, it is not a position I got from cherry picking the evidence, and it is not a position I got because I admire Carl Sagan. It is a position I arrived at over several years and one that has held up for me when hard choices had to be made.

To bring this back on topic, I have always been an atheist. At no time in my life did I ever believe their was a god. I read the bible when I was in my early teens to see what my friends were so fired up about. I thought it was a terribly boring and silly book. That isn't surprising after reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and other such classics.

So, even an atheist can have the "abortion is murder" mindset. It doesn't take religion for that. It is the fact that I turned to science for my world view on issues that resulted in my current moral position on abortion. And the fact of the matter is, I agree with what you're saying about Abortion. Personally, I'm pro-choice, and socially I'm pro-choice. But, and this is the important part, I don't think my position is any more valid than any other moral position on the matter. If someone were to tell me that they were pro-life, I would offer them the facts that make me pro-choice, and if they continued to believe that the facts that made them pro-life outweighed the ones that I offered, I would accept that they were making a moral decision with full awareness of the facts. And if they chose to lobby for banning abortion, I would oppose them, but I would not think their position was wrong.

Similarly, gun control. I am an opponent, but I respect the position of those who are pro-control, as opposed to pro-gun freedom. What I will argue is any facts people offer that are wrong, but I will not say the pro-control position is unscientific (nor is the pro-freedom position). It merely comes down to a matter of judgment.

The statement I had a problem with is this:

First, what is wrong with forcing someone to conform to a moral position because it is based on science instead of religion? It is the forcing issue that I have a problem with. I mean we all agree that science shows smoking is bad. So lets ban smoking (forced to comply with a moral position). And eating unhealthy is definitely bad. Lets impose a fine on anyone who has more than 18,000 calories in a week, unless they can show they need to for health/body building/fitness reasons. And lets definitely make it illegal to drive a car with 3 stars or less safety rating, buy more than three items of junk food at the supermarket, and chew gum (think Singapore).

Science is MUCH clearer on those issues than it is on abortion. And yet we would probably have a problem following the dictates of science there. Why? Because science doesn't dictate.

It really is not hard. Whenever you are making a moral statement, you are outside the bounds of science. Period.

qayak

4th May 2008, 04:26 PM

The statement I had a problem with is this:
It is the forcing issue that I have a problem with. I mean we all agree that science shows smoking is bad. So lets ban smoking (forced to comply with a moral position). And eating unhealthy is definitely bad. Lets impose a fine on anyone who has more than 18,000 calories in a week, unless they can show they need to for health/body building/fitness reasons. And lets definitely make it illegal to drive a car with 3 stars or less safety rating, buy more than three items of junk food at the supermarket, and chew gum (think Singapore).

Science is MUCH clearer on those issues than it is on abortion. And yet we would probably have a problem following the dictates of science there. Why? Because science doesn't dictate.

It really is not hard. Whenever you are making a moral statement, you are outside the bounds of science. Period.

Okay, so let's deal with my statement: First, what is wrong with forcing someone to conform to a moral position because it is based on science instead of religion?

My point when making this statement was that we have morality "forced" upon us everyday. For years and years, with the abortion issue, it was a religious view that was forced upon us and which allowed only a few to exercise their beliefs. Now we have a law based on our understanding of how pregnancy progresses, the fetus develops, and all the other issues surrounding abortion, which allows everyone to exercise their beliefs. My statement was "What is wrong with that? To me, it seems a whole lot better."

I understand that forcing morality on people isn't what we want but it is a fact of life in any society. I would like those issues to be decided with the best possible information and allowing the most people to exercise their beliefs as freely as possible.

I hope that clears it up somewhat.