The Dark Side of Secular Humanism

[EGarrett]

I'm looking for one. Their philosophy sounds like something I 100% agree with on the surface, but of course that's their own side of things.

Are there any common criticisms of it that I don't know about? From skeptics or "religious" people?

Rather than having to say "I'm an atheist" then being engaged in a billion year debate where I have to explain why I still like the world and like people, I'd like to just be able to say "I'm a secular humanist" or link people to the page and save the time. But I'd prefer to know if there are any criticisms I'm unaware of before I do.

[Bikewer]

From someone who maintains a Secular Humanist perspective, I would say the only downside is the extreme lonliness...

"Secular Humanist? So, you worship Satan?"

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From someone who maintains a Secular Humanist perspective, I would say the only downside is the extreme lonliness...

So thank, err, God for the Internet!

Gord

----
BAWA

[Dave1001]

I'm looking for one. Their philosophy sounds like something I 100% agree with on the surface, but of course that's their own side of things.

Are there any common criticisms of it that I don't know about? From skeptics or "religious" people?

Rather than having to say "I'm an atheist" then being engaged in a billion year debate where I have to explain why I still like the world and like people, I'd like to just be able to say "I'm a secular humanist" or link people to the page and save the time. But I'd prefer to know if there are any criticisms I'm unaware of before I do.

I think the primary rational criticism, which I personally have some angst about is the "humanist" part of it. It seems inaccurate in a way that can cause problems later on, kin of like calling liberal representative govt. "democracy". Clearly, secular humanism is about social contracts between sentient entities capable of contract, not about relations between humans per se. Maybe extropianism would be a better (although even more obscure) name for your belief system?

[Euromutt]

Bikewer's got a point, the term is practically used as a pejorative by the religious right these days.

I wondered for a while whether the stigma attached to terms like "socialist" and "atheist" in American society could be traced to the Soviet Union. There's a difference between socialism and communism, but the Sovs deliberately blurred the line, calling themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (even though the party was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto). They also fielded the League of Militant Atheists, who were essentially a brute squad created for the purpose of suppressing any religious ideology which might compete with "Scientific Marxism" (essentially saying "there is no god by Marx, and Stalin is his prophet"). It was an interesting hypothesis, but when I see how the religious right has systematically stigmatized the term "secular humanism," I'm inclined to think the hypothesis was incorrect.

[c4ts]

Uh, secular humanism offers no easy to follow set of instructions for guaranteed moral superiority? Although I would consider that an advantage.

[The Atheist]

Come on, don't be shy - stick with the atheist tag!

I go a step further, classing myself as an "Extreme Atheist", because in NZ, the term "atheist" has been largely de-powered by some people who use it to describe the fact that they don't go to church.

I realise that the picture in USA is far different, but that in itself is a good reason to stick with atheist.

Yes, you'll have to explain your position, but so you will with any tag you choose. At least "atheist" is nice and simple = NO GOD.

[grayman]

Back to work Dave.

[latent aaaack]

If you just want to avoid the subject, define God the way theists do. Mold the word to fit your needs. If you believe in love for example you can still say you believe in God because many think "God is love" or that the entirety of existence is God. Technically it's impossible to actually be an atheist because the definition of God is basically the equivalent of pointing to the sky and grunting. If 'secular humanism' has been stigmatized go with unitarian universalist or naturalistic pantheist, which requires just that you believe in the universe.

[geni]

Well the obvious problems are:

"Search for truth" people generaly don't want the truth. At least not on an emotional level.

"Building a better world" somehow people with that intention tend to worry me.

[Euromutt]

Come on, don't be shy - stick with the atheist tag! [...]Thing is, the two are not mutually exclusive. Secular humanism posits that any improvement in the human condition has to come about by first and foremost (and possibly entirely) by human agency rather by supernatural means. You don't have to be an atheist to be a humanist, but you can be. I consider myself to be both.

Certainly, there seems to be increasingly little point in describing yourself (in the US, that is) as a "secular humanist" in order to avoid getting off on the wrong foot with people who hold negative associations with the term "atheist." And yes, I've done that in the past. Still, I'm not inclined to resort to describing myself as a UU, deist or pantheist instead, simply because those are viewpoints to which I do not subscribe. Moreover, it wouldn't do much good; deism and pantheism have already been targets of a religious backlash in America, namely the Second Great Awakening some two hundred years ago, and if it happened once, it can happen again.

[Foster Zygote]

Many Christians in the U.S. are taught that atheists and secular humanists are virtually one in the same and equally dangerous to innocent children and puppies.

Steven

[Dave1001]

Back to work Dave.

On general principle, thank you friend. Although I don't work friday and saturday nights. ;)

[Complexity]

I prefer 'freethinker' to 'atheist' or 'bright'.

It has a rich history, it is accurate, and it is actually much more in-your-face than the other terms.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Bikewer's got a point, the term is practically used as a pejorative by the religious right these days.

I wondered for a while whether the stigma attached to terms like "socialist" and "atheist" in American society could be traced to the Soviet Union.

That's largely what I usually have to deal with. Whenever I bring up the Crusades or the Inquesition to Christians they usually shoot back with "Oh Yeah! Well what about the Soviet Union!" To quoque fallacies aside, what they seem to ignore is that secular humanism is mutually exclusive from one's economic beliefs. One CAN be a secular humanists AND a capitalist just as easily as one can be a secular humanist and a socialist. I don't see a contridiction.

The only people who can't divorce secularism from politics tend to be the bible-beaters who still rant and rave about "godless communism" and the few hard-core Marxists left who think you can't be a good atheist if you don't believe the Historical Dialectic. Either way, they're both wrong.

[Euromutt]

That's largely what I usually have to deal with. Whenever I bring up the Crusades or the Inquesition to Christians they usually shoot back with "Oh Yeah! Well what about the Soviet Union!"There's a theoretically simple answer to that sort of thing:
I: "Do you unquestioningly believe the Soviet claim that their country was truly a Worker's Paradise?"
II: "If not, why do you take their word for it that the campaign staged by the so-called League of Militant Atheists was actually motivated by atheism?"

[elaine]

From someone who maintains a Secular Humanist perspective, I would say the only downside is the extreme lonliness...

"Secular Humanist? So, you worship Satan?"

LOL

[EGarrett]

I think the primary rational criticism, which I personally have some angst about is the "humanist" part of it. It seems inaccurate in a way that can cause problems later on, kin of like calling liberal representative govt. "democracy". Clearly, secular humanism is about social contracts between sentient entities capable of contract, not about relations between humans per se. Maybe extropianism would be a better (although even more obscure) name for your belief system?From what I gather from Wikipedia, Extropianism basically looks at humanity as the opposite of entropy and promotes science etc. I like it...it doesn't seem to "fit" the way I see the world as much as the definition of secular humanism does.

I love that they don't attack religion or the concept of God, which would create irritating philosophical debates, but simply say that religion isn't a useful concept...which is a much better way to put it in my eyes and would at least cause a new type of debate.

Plus, Extropianism doesn't sound as good. :)

Bikewer's got a point, the term is practically used as a pejorative by the religious right these days.At first I thought, "why would they do that? From what I read, it's such a non-combative and useful philosophy!"

Then I realized...that's EXACTLY why they would do it. Atheism scares them enough, but Secular Humanism is even more of a threat to spread because it's more attractive and inherently not nihilistic.

I wondered for a while whether the stigma attached to terms like "socialist" and "atheist" in American society could be traced to the Soviet Union. There's a difference between socialism and communism, but the Sovs deliberately blurred the line, calling themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (even though the party was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto). They also fielded the League of Militant Atheists, who were essentially a brute squad created for the purpose of suppressing any religious ideology which might compete with "Scientific Marxism" (essentially saying "there is no god by Marx, and Stalin is his prophet"). It was an interesting hypothesis, but when I see how the religious right has systematically stigmatized the term "secular humanism," I'm inclined to think the hypothesis was incorrect.I read this a couple times, it's interesting. I don't have anything to say about it though, just wanted to say that I read it a couple times.

Come on, don't be shy - stick with the atheist tag!

I go a step further, classing myself as an "Extreme Atheist", because in NZ, the term "atheist" has been largely de-powered by some people who use it to describe the fact that they don't go to church.

I realise that the picture in USA is far different, but that in itself is a good reason to stick with atheist.

Yes, you'll have to explain your position, but so you will with any tag you choose. At least "atheist" is nice and simple = NO GOD.But to me, telling a religious person you're an atheist is just inviting them to challenge you or try to convert you. Who wants to deal with that? I can let them talk all day without answering and it won't change my worldview one bit, but I just don't feel like standing there while they do.

At least if you say "Secular Humanist" you can get a grunt of "huh?" Which lets YOU explain yourself first without them assuming a bunch of BS or immediately going on the offensive to bring you to Jesus.

Well the obvious problems are:

"Search for truth" people generaly don't want the truth. At least not on an emotional level.Why? Because the truth includes mortality?

"Building a better world" somehow people with that intention tend to worry me.Unfortunately, everyone seems to say it, particularly some of our most prolific historical murderers.

Many Christians in the U.S. are taught that atheists and secular humanists are virtually one in the same and equally dangerous to innocent children and puppies.

StevenSo, now I'm considering, since Secular Humanism is already a negative or pigeonholed term among the religious, should I not use that either? Or should I DEFINITELY use it because it fits my worldview and I don't care? The mere fact that they would attack it seems to me evidence that it's a real threat to replacing them.

[elaine]

My recent experiences with people of various faiths regarding my atheism, is making me consider being more open about my beliefs. Mostly, because I'm contrary by nature, and it's fun to mess with folks who are threatened by other's beliefs, whether it be religion, politics, whatever...

It's also a great way to find like-minded people you encounter on a daily basis.

I have a t-rex eating a jesus fish emblem on my car.

[SusanB-M1]

The word 'humanism' is a subject for discussion fairly regularly at Humanist meetings. As mentioned by The Atheist, the word is often thought to mean people who don't go to church. The problem is that no-one has come up with a better word and the British Humanist Association (and the American equivalent I believe) has had the title for a long time and there would have to be a really strong, positive reason for changing. I do strongly recommend membership of the Association because their views carry more weight and influence when backed by numbers of members. Bearing in mind the small office in London, it is admirable the amount of work they do to make sure the voice of (secular) humanism is heard.

At one meeting, there was a discussion about a Unitarium something or other in America which is, as far as I remember, closer to Humanism than the actual American Humanist Association, but I am not sure about this, so please don't quote me.

I was quite surprised by the title as I certainly cannot think of any 'dark' side to humanism. Plenty of like-minded people, as on the JREF and many well-known names as supporters, Terry Pratchett for example.

[hammegk]

... Secular Humanism is even more of a threat to spread because it's more attractive and inherently not nihilistic.What makes you believe Sec. Hum. is not inherently nihilistic?

[blutoski]

What makes you believe Sec. Hum. is not inherently nihilistic?

I just tripped over this thread-killer ;) and think it deserves a response.

Essentially, the problem is distinguishing a nihilistic cosmology from a nihilistic politic. Unlike historical political Nihilism, Secular Humanism is a movement that believes it can exist and co-exist with religious participants.

While the name is new, Secular Humanism descibes many cosmologies that predate the Western monotheistic traditions (ie: the Greek secular style of politics) and those that have evolved in the Eastern tradition (such as Confucianism). Secular Humanism is also compatible with religious Secular Humanists, such as the Jesuits, Francescans, Quakers and Anabaptists, who have been historically attached to the movement, but only recently distanced themselves because of stigma (as opposed to philosophical differences).



re: Uni-whatsits above... this was probably a reference to Unitarian Universalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism) - another religion unpopular with fundies.

[EGarrett]

What makes you believe Sec. Hum. is not inherently nihilistic?"Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
...
This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. "

[EGarrett]

The word 'humanism' is a subject for discussion fairly regularly at Humanist meetings.I can imagine a humanist meeting where most of the time is spent trying to decide what a humanist is would be quite funny. :)

I do strongly recommend membership of the Association because their views carry more weight and influence when backed by numbers of members.Where do I sign up?

Bearing in mind the small office in London, it is admirable the amount of work they do to make sure the voice of (secular) humanism is heard.Aren't Humanism and Secular Humanism distinctly different things?

I was quite surprised by the title as I certainly cannot think of any 'dark' side to humanism. Plenty of like-minded people, as on the JREF and many well-known names as supporters, Terry Pratchett for example.I was looking for a Dark Side, not pointing one out. :)

[blutoski]

Aren't Humanism and Secular Humanism distinctly different things?

I think that's the question. Humanism existed before Secular Humanism. Technically, Secular Humanism is a subtype of Humanism, compatible with Religious Humanism. Together, they make up Humanism as a movement, but there can be friction between some members of the communities.

[SusanB-M1]

I can imagine a humanist meeting where most of the time is spent trying to decide what a humanist is would be quite funny. :)

Where do I sign up?

Aren't Humanism and Secular Humanism distinctly different things?

I was looking for a Dark Side, not pointing one out. :)

The British Humanist Association is the place and I've copied the www and will try and paste it here:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/

I then phoned Jemma Hooper and just checked with her before typing this what the difference between secular humanism and humanism is. It seems that 'secular humanism' differentiates it from 'religious humanism'. What I can say for sure is that we BHA members, like so many here, do not believe in any supernatural deity. The stronger the Association is, the more likely it is to be able to have a say in Government legislation. And I am sure that if someone could come up with a better title, it would be adopted!

[Dave1001]

And I am sure that if someone could come up with a better title, it would be adopted!

My opinion, that shouldn't be hard. Humanism already sounds unecessarily chauvenist, in a way that will turn off animal rights' types without attracting actual human chauvenists, who trend either towards deism or social darwinism.

[Bikewer]

The Humanist magazine had an entire issued devoted to the idea of "speciesism" a few years ago. Interesting debate.

[JamesDillon]

My opinion, that shouldn't be hard. Humanism already sounds unecessarily chauvenist, in a way that will turn off animal rights' types without attracting actual human chauvenists, who trend either towards deism or social darwinism.

Is it chauvinistic to think that, even if Man was not made in the image of god but in fact the other way around, there is something special about humanity that entitles it to some greater degree of respect or attention than other forms of life on Earth? If so, I guess I'm guilty, but I think that such a position can be defended even in the absence of a religious justification.

[EGarrett]

The British Humanist Association is the place and I've copied the www and will try and paste it here:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/

I then phoned Jemma Hooper and just checked with her before typing this what the difference between secular humanism and humanism is. It seems that 'secular humanism' differentiates it from 'religious humanism'. What I can say for sure is that we BHA members, like so many here, do not believe in any supernatural deity. The stronger the Association is, the more likely it is to be able to have a say in Government legislation. And I am sure that if someone could come up with a better title, it would be adopted!What if we're not British?

[UserGoogol]

Is it chauvinistic to think that, even if Man was not made in the image of god but in fact the other way around, there is something special about humanity that entitles it to some greater degree of respect or attention than other forms of life on Earth? If so, I guess I'm guilty, but I think that such a position can be defended even in the absence of a religious justification.

Perhaps. But there is nothing a priori best about being human, it just so happens that when you look at the world, human beings are the only ones with those "special" properties. But humanism sounds a lot better than conscious-and-intelligent-being-ism, so I can understand why you'd want to keep the word around.

[Dancing David]

Well the obvious problems are:

"Search for truth" people generaly don't want the truth. At least not on an emotional level.

"Building a better world" somehow people with that intention tend to worry me.


I think the other problem is in the 'search' part, most people would rather be fed fast food that contains unhealthy levels of fat and sodium than make thier own. So it is with religion, why cook when you can eat pablum for free.

And the second part of search is think, why think when you can just say 'moo-moo', 'baa-baa', when the Slaughter Master says"JUmp frog'.

[Dancing David]

What makes you believe Sec. Hum. is not inherently nihilistic?


Oh, Hamme , you have fallen to just quip mode again?

What kind of argument is that? Can you say why humanism is nihilist or just make the cute little snide remarks that keep them laughing at the nursing home?

( ;) )

You are certainly capable of making better choices.

[Jekyll]

What if we're not British?

Then there's no hope for any of you :p .

[JamesDillon]

Perhaps. But there is nothing a priori best about being human, it just so happens that when you look at the world, human beings are the only ones with those "special" properties. But humanism sounds a lot better than conscious-and-intelligent-being-ism, so I can understand why you'd want to keep the word around.

Seeing as humans are the only conscious and intelligent beings of which we're currently aware, I don't see that as a big problem. It's hard to be biased against beings of whose existence one has no solid evidence. If and when the Vulcans show up, we'll have to coin some new term that denotes the special characteristics that distinguish "sentient" life forms from others, but until that happens, I see no problem with keeping the term "humanism."

[Dancing David]

I just tripped over this thread-killer ;) and think it deserves a response.

Essentially, the problem is distinguishing a nihilistic cosmology from a nihilistic politic. Unlike historical political Nihilism, Secular Humanism is a movement that believes it can exist and co-exist with religious participants.



Yes but the sheep don't like anyone who doesn't wear fleece, so they like wolves that wear fleece and then eat them, but woe for the humanist that doesn't wear the uniform.

[Dancing David]

Seeing as humans are the only conscious and intelligent beings of which we're currently aware, I don't see that as a big problem. It's hard to be biased against beings of whose existence one has no solid evidence. If and when the Vulcans show up, we'll have to coin some new term that denotes the special characteristics that distinguish "sentient" life forms from others, but until that happens, I see no problem with keeping the term "humanism."


That is a rather bizzare claims, so are elephants, dolphins and chimps stupid or what?

Or is it thier non-verbal skills that keep them from intelligence and consciousness?

[Beerina]

Rather than having to say "I'm an atheist" then being engaged in a billion year debate where I have to explain why I still like the world and like people, I'd like to just be able to say "I'm a secular humanist" or link people to the page and save the time. But I'd prefer to know if there are any criticisms I'm unaware of before I do.

I am an athiest. I am secular. However, I am not a humanist. Hence I could not declare myself a "secular humanist".

I am a secular misanthropist. Or would that be malanthropist?

[Dave1001]

Seeing as humans are the only conscious and intelligent beings of which we're currently aware, I don't see that as a big problem. It's hard to be biased against beings of whose existence one has no solid evidence. If and when the Vulcans show up, we'll have to coin some new term that denotes the special characteristics that distinguish "sentient" life forms from others, but until that happens, I see no problem with keeping the term "humanism."

I think this approach is asking for trouble. It's not that different from a Spaniard explorer saying in 1491, Europeans, Orientals, Arabs, and Africans are the only people we're aware of. So we'll limit our definition of "person" to these populations, and perhaps revise our definition of person at a later time if we encounter a new population. Sure in theory the term can be efficiently revised at a future date without any deadly conflict or misunderstanding. But the past indicates there's a good chance we're setting ourselves up for future conflict by messily using a species specific term, "human", for what is most likely a transpecies phenomenon: intelligent beings capable of forming social contracts with each other for civil society.

[hammegk]

Oh, Hamme , you have fallen to just quip mode again?

What kind of argument is that? Can you say why humanism is nihilist or just make the cute little snide remarks that keep them laughing at the nursing home?
Yet I suspect you and a few others understood the meaning of my remark. :) And if not, no harm done.


You are certainly capable of making better choices.
As are you.

[JamesDillon]

I think this approach is asking for trouble. It's not that different from a Spaniard explorer saying in 1491, Europeans, Orientals, Arabs, and Africans are the only people we're aware of. So we'll limit our definition of "person" to these populations, and perhaps revise our definition of person at a later time if we encounter a new population. Sure in theory the term can be efficiently revised at a future date without any deadly conflict or misunderstanding. But the past indicates there's a good chance we're setting ourselves up for future conflict by messily using a species specific term, "human", for what is most likely a transpecies phenomenon: intelligent beings capable of forming social contracts with each other for civil society.

I guess you could make that argument, but I don't think very many people who describe themselves as secular humanists would be likely to exclude other sentient species from moral consideration merely because they lack human DNA (or DNA entirely, for that matter). That kind of closed-mindedness seems more appropriate to theistic beliefs of the sort that hold that mankind was created in the divine image. I suppose no harm would come from calling the belief something like "Secular Sentientism," but it makes it sound a bit too science-fictioney for my taste until we've actually established the existence of nonhuman sentient beings.

[blutoski]

Yes but the sheep don't like anyone who doesn't wear fleece, so they like wolves that wear fleece and then eat them, but woe for the humanist that doesn't wear the uniform.

Yalostme. Are you saying I'm a sheep?

[Beerina]

I guess you could make that argument, but I don't think very many people who describe themselves as secular humanists would be likely to exclude other sentient species from moral consideration merely because they lack human DNA (or DNA entirely, for that matter).

No, they'd arguably be the first to be inclusive. Some of the brighter ones might hope the other species chose to consider humans "humans".

[Dancing David]

Yet I suspect you and a few others understood the meaning of my remark. :) And if not, no harm done.


As are you.

nah, I only operate under the illusion of free will, I am a soul less robot! (I am an m-zombie after all.)

[Dave1001]

Yalostme. Are you saying I'm a sheep?

Was it that hard to get? He's saying you're a wolf, but you're trying really, really, hard to be a sheppard. ;)

[Marc L]

In my personal experience, I've found that simply saying "I'm not religious" avoids a lot of comment.

Yes, it's a bit cowardly, but apparently, in the minds of the people I've come into contact with, "not religious" doesn't necessarily equate with "atheist."

Marc

[chriswl]

In my personal experience, I've found that simply saying "I'm not religious" avoids a lot of comment.
That's exactly what I say too, on the rare occasion that the subject comes up in real life. It has the benefit of conveying not only a lack of belief but a lack of interest in the whole subject. It says "don't talk to me about that stuff, I'm just not into it".

[Dark Jaguar]

Come on, don't be shy - stick with the atheist tag!

I go a step further, classing myself as an "Extreme Atheist", because in NZ, the term "atheist" has been largely de-powered by some people who use it to describe the fact that they don't go to church.

I realise that the picture in USA is far different, but that in itself is a good reason to stick with atheist.

Yes, you'll have to explain your position, but so you will with any tag you choose. At least "atheist" is nice and simple = NO GOD.

The only problem with this is that atheist only means "no belief in any gods" (or in extreme cases, active disbelief in gods, but I don't take that stance), whereas secular denotes a lack of religious or spiritual leanings of any kind, making it a superset of atheism and a more accurate representation of my beliefs. I don't JUST not believe in gods, I also don't believe in all manner of crazy spiritual stuff like crystal energy or being one with the universe or karma or astrology or reincarnation or ghosts or any of the vast number of spiritual beliefs that don't require a god. Beyond that I also don't believe in bigfeets or alien abductions or vast government conspiracies or various pseudoscience of a nonspiritual nature (just no evidence but testable claims). Huminist's stance on using scientific enquiry includes that but also a lot of other baggage. I do find myself agreeing with a lot of it but I tend to like describing myself without referring to ideals.

In the "not religious" vein, I think I'll experiment with saying "not spiritual".

[The Atheist]

The only problem with this is that atheist only means "no belief in any gods" (or in extreme cases, active disbelief in gods, but I don't take that stance), whereas secular denotes a lack of religious or spiritual leanings of any kind, making it a superset of atheism and a more accurate representation of my beliefs. I don't JUST not believe in gods, I also don't believe in all manner of crazy spiritual stuff like crystal energy or being one with the universe or karma or astrology or reincarnation or ghosts or any of the vast number of spiritual beliefs that don't require a god. Beyond that I also don't believe in bigfeets or alien abductions or vast government conspiracies or various pseudoscience of a nonspiritual nature (just no evidence but testable claims). Huminist's stance on using scientific enquiry includes that but also a lot of other baggage. I do find myself agreeing with a lot of it but I tend to like describing myself without referring to ideals.

In the "not religious" vein, I think I'll experiment with saying "not spiritual".

I'd say you will find that most, if not all atheists also don't accept astrology, taort, crystals auras, etc., either. To me, it would be a strange person who, on one hand denies gods, while on the other accepting even worse bunkum by whipping out a horoscope. I certainly don't know any.

What you are describing is all embraced under the term "Rationalist". The only reason I don't use that term myself is that the NZ Ass'n of Rationalists and Humanists are a bit soft for my liking - or maybe I'm a bit harsh for theirs?

[The Atheist]

Seeing as humans are the only conscious and intelligent beings of which we're currently aware, I don't see that as a big problem.

I see I'm not the first to point this ridiculous statement out. Given that well over half of all humans believe in some kind of god, I'd argue that most species could be considered smarter than us; when elephants and dolphins start building churches, then I'll reconsider.

[T'ai Chi]

One would have to convincingly demonstrate that replacing awe for just science, or the natural world, or whatever, is 'better' than awe for god(s) who created all of that.

[SusanB-M1]

What if we're not British?

Not sure, exactly! But one of our local members is a Belgian, and in Belgium Humanism has a place equal to religious groups. I will find out more as soon as possible, but, here again, I am sure the BHA would give any information required.

[JamesDillon]

I see I'm not the first to point this ridiculous statement out. Given that well over half of all humans believe in some kind of god, I'd argue that most species could be considered smarter than us; when elephants and dolphins start building churches, then I'll reconsider.

Are you calling my statement ridiculous, and that's your rebuttal? When elephants and dolphins split the atom, then I'll reconsider.

[T'ai Chi]

When elephants and dolphins split the atom, then I'll reconsider.

Well humans didn't split the atom, our technology did. Quite a difference. :)

[JamesDillon]

Well humans didn't split the atom, our technology did. Quite a difference. :)

No, not a difference at all. Go read up on extended phenotypes.

[chriswl]

I'd say you will find that most, if not all atheists also don't accept astrology, taort, crystals auras, etc., either. To me, it would be a strange person who, on one hand denies gods, while on the other accepting even worse bunkum by whipping out a horoscope. I certainly don't know any.
If we are talking about atheists in the sense of simply not believing in God, I don't think this is uncommon at all. People reject religion for different reasons. For most of us on here it is part of a broader rejection of all things superstitious. But some people just want to reject the power structures of organised religion and end up believing in all sorts of "alternative" spiritual stuff which may not necessarily include gods. I personally know a few people like this.

An other example would be the many Chinese atheists who believe in Feng Shui and astrology and believe a whole lot of superstitious stuff about lucky numbers.

[The Atheist]

Are you calling my statement ridiculous, and that's your rebuttal? When elephants and dolphins split the atom, then I'll reconsider.

Like Douglas Adams, I believe that the fact that we have nuclear power and weapons is another reason to consider dolphins smarter than humans than the reverse. Very bad example; technology which was developed, can be and has been used to kill hundreds of thousands or more humans in one go isn't our greatest achievement. You could at least have tried Michaelangelo, Raphael or Beethoven, even Stanley Kubrick, Dali and Stephen King, but no, you pick splitting atoms. Boy, I'd love to pop you in your place on the evolutionary ladder!

[The Atheist]

If we are talking about atheists in the sense of simply not believing in God, I don't think this is uncommon at all. People reject religion for different reasons. For most of us on here it is part of a broader rejection of all things superstitious. But some people just want to reject the power structures of organised religion and end up believing in all sorts of "alternative" spiritual stuff which may not necessarily include gods. I personally know a few people like this.

An other example would be the many Chinese atheists who believe in Feng Shui and astrology and believe a whole lot of superstitious stuff about lucky numbers.

Fair point, and exactly why I call myself an extreme atheist. To me, an atheist is a rationalist who rejects not just organised religion, but ALL religion and mysticism. Belief in astrology implies some other "power" running the universe, which, to me, is no more than an alternative religion, whereas atheism is an alternative to religion. Pretty picky and pedantic maybe, and no doubt someone will accuse me of starting a "true scotsman" argument, but I cannot count atheists as being committed to atheism if they then go and leave gifts for the good fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[Morrigan]

I would say the egalitarian trappings of humanism are strong enough to warrant criticism. Therefore I would avoid the term.

[JamesDillon]

Like Douglas Adams, I believe that the fact that we have nuclear power and weapons is another reason to consider dolphins smarter than humans than the reverse. Very bad example; technology which was developed, can be and has been used to kill hundreds of thousands or more humans in one go isn't our greatest achievement. You could at least have tried Michaelangelo, Raphael or Beethoven, even Stanley Kubrick, Dali and Stephen King, but no, you pick splitting atoms. Boy, I'd love to pop you in your place on the evolutionary ladder!
Douglas Adams, I dare say, was intentionally speaking hyperbolically. You seem to be taking it literally. It has occurred to you, hasn't it, that dolphins and elephans don't believe in God because they lack the capacity for abstract thought necessary to conceive of such beliefs, as well as the capacity for linguistic expression necessary to tell us whether they do or not, and not because they're "smart" enough to be above such nonsense?

[UserGoogol]

Eh, no matter how smart dolphins are, the fact that they have flippers instead of hands makes it rather difficult for them to develop technology. I mean, what is a dolphin supposed to build his church or nuclear reactor with? Its tongue? So the nonexistance of dolphin artifacts is kind of irrelevant to how smart they are, because there are very good reasons unrelated to intelligence why they can't make em.

[T'ai Chi]

No, not a difference at all. Go read up on extended phenotypes.

Humans did not split the atom.

What we built, did.

[Marc L]

Like Douglas Adams, I believe that the fact that we have nuclear power and weapons is another reason to consider dolphins smarter than humans than the reverse.

By that argument, all non-human animal life on earth is smarter than we are.

Very bad example; technology which was developed, can be and has been used to kill hundreds of thousands or more humans in one go isn't our greatest achievement. You could at least have tried Michaelangelo, Raphael or Beethoven, even Stanley Kubrick, Dali and Stephen King, but no, you pick splitting atoms. Boy, I'd love to pop you in your place on the evolutionary ladder!

I've decided, for myself, at least, not to wonder which is the smartest animal. Smart is too subjective. I certainly couldn't build a beaver dam if my life depended on it, and yet I don't see beavers inventing computers. Personally, I think we are the best at manipulating our environment. Certainly the most successful at it. For good or for ill.

Marc

[Dancing David]

Yalostme. Are you saying I'm a sheep?


Not at all penguin! I was pointing out that the religous types often only tolerate humanism dressed as religion, but then get expoited by very unethical people who pose as religous.

[Dancing David]

Are you calling my statement ridiculous, and that's your rebuttal? When elephants and dolphins split the atom, then I'll reconsider.

When did you split the atom? Any time recently? gee , when fermi created the pile at the university, black people were being lynched all over the USA and americans who were american citizens were being deported to mexico for no good reason other than thier ancestors were mexican. Is that intelligent?

When elephants and dolphins practice ethnic cleansing and warfare will you call them intelligent?

Your defintion of intelligence ignores the stupidity of the average human and glosses over what intelligence might actualy be, define the functional aspects of intelligence and then say why dolphins and elephants don't have them.

[Dave1001]

There's also a certain amoung of ego (or generosity) in conflating the smartest humans with the rest of us. I think Plato or Galen would, after a few years of catch up, blend in perfectly well with our cognitive elites. But a good chunk of the world's humans aren't contributing anything of great value with all their synaptic connections. That number could be as high as 99% of the world or more. Basically most of us are free-loading our way into a future created by a cognitive super-elite, much like cats, dogs, rats, cockroaches, and the rest of the world's lifeforms.

[JamesDillon]

When did you split the atom? Any time recently? gee , when fermi created the pile at the university, black people were being lynched all over the USA and americans who were american citizens were being deported to mexico for no good reason other than thier ancestors were mexican. Is that intelligent?

When elephants and dolphins practice ethnic cleansing and warfare will you call them intelligent?
This is among the more ludicrous arguments I've heard here, though frankly over the last few days I'm losing track of the ludicrous arguments being presented. There seems to be a great upsurge in inanity that I've yet to understand.

At any rate, it should go without saying that intelligence, defined as the capacity to learn, is categorically distinct from morality or virtue. Bigotry and warfare may be immoral, and "stupid" from a prudential perspective, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the capacity for learning that defines intelligence.

Your defintion of intelligence ignores the stupidity of the average human and glosses over what intelligence might actualy be, define the functional aspects of intelligence and then say why dolphins and elephants don't have them.
No, it doesn't. Even the "stupid" average human is a hell of a lot smarter than a smart dolphin.

Moreover, your naive view of animal utopia ignores the fact that violence and murder are hardly unique to the human species. We've simply developed smarter ways of going about it than any other animal.

[JamesDillon]

There's also a certain amoung of ego (or generosity) in conflating the smartest humans with the rest of us.
No, there isn't. I used one of our greatest achievements as an example, but frankly even a low-brow couch potato is still smarter than a dolphin. I can't believe we're having a serious debate about this.
I think Plato or Galen would, after a few years of catch up, blend in perfectly well with our cognitive elites.
That's an interesting question; I wonder whether an individual socialized by a lifetime in a very alien culture (more alien than any contemporary culture, because even the most remote places of the world today have some familiarity with modern technology, even if they are well behind the times from our perspective) could adapt if transplanted into our world. If not, of course, it's merely a matter of psychological inflexibility rather than innate inferiority. In any case, I don't see what this has to do with what we're discussion.
But a good chunk of the world's humans aren't contributing anything of great value with all their synaptic connections. That number could be as high as 99% of the world or more.
I dare say it depends on how one defines "great value." Virtually anyone who is actively employed is keeping the cultural system running and contributing in one way or another to the well-being of the human race. Obviously some contributions are more valuable than others, but as we were frequently reminded in elementary school, even the janitor's job is essential to keeping the system running. Anyone who has occupied a position in an organizational hierarchy comes to realize that everyone's job is important in some way or other. We can't all be Einsteins, of course, but even if we were, who would sweep the floor?

Basically most of us are free-loading our way into a future created by a cognitive super-elite, much like cats, dogs, rats, cockroaches, and the rest of the world's lifeforms.
I don't really see what relevance this has. My claim is that the average human (I dare say virtually any human, though there might be a handful of severely disabled individuals for whom this would not be true) has a greater intelligence than even the smartest dolphin or chimp. I just don't see how that claim can seriously be disputed-- it certainly can't be disputed by the fact that dolphins don't believe in God.

[Dave1001]

No, there isn't. I used one of our greatest achievements as an example, but frankly even a low-brow couch potato is still smarter than a dolphin. I can't believe we're having a serious debate about this.

That's an interesting question; I wonder whether an individual socialized by a lifetime in a very alien culture (more alien than any contemporary culture, because even the most remote places of the world today have some familiarity with modern technology, even if they are well behind the times from our perspective) could adapt if transplanted into our world. If not, of course, it's merely a matter of psychological inflexibility rather than innate inferiority. In any case, I don't see what this has to do with what we're discussion.

I dare say it depends on how one defines "great value." Virtually anyone who is actively employed is keeping the cultural system running and contributing in one way or another to the well-being of the human race. Obviously some contributions are more valuable than others, but as we were frequently reminded in elementary school, even the janitor's job is essential to keeping the system running. Anyone who has occupied a position in an organizational hierarchy comes to realize that everyone's job is important in some way or other. We can't all be Einsteins, of course, but even if we were, who would sweep the floor?


I don't really see what relevance this has. My claim is that the average human (I dare say virtually any human, though there might be a handful of severely disabled individuals for whom this would not be true) has a greater intelligence than even the smartest dolphin or chimp. I just don't see how that claim can seriously be disputed-- it certainly can't be disputed by the fact that dolphins don't believe in God.

Here's the relevance. You're comparing humans vs. non-humans. But I think it's rather arbitrary, maybe even misleading to draw the line there. We might as well say primates are smarter than non-primates, or brained-lifeforms are smarter than non-brained lifeforms.

After all it is brained lifeforms that split the atom. Okay, okay I admit I'm being misleading by making the class so big. So it's primates that split the atom. Still too big a class? Okay, it's organisms smart enough to figure out how to split atoms. Whoops, there went most humans who ever lived out of that class.

[EGarrett]

We might as well say primates are smarter than non-primates, or brained-lifeforms are smarter than non-brained lifeforms.I think you're starting to slip into nonsense...Dave. ;)

[Dark Jaguar]

I think the problem is you are confusing someone saying humans are SMARTER than other animals as saying we are BETTER than they are.

I'll freely confess that intelligence in and of itself is neither good nor bad. I would certainly prefer to be intelligent than otherwise, but it isn't inherantly good, nothing is.

Yes, ethnic cleansing and other unspeakable attrocities DOES require intelligence. Evil? Yes, but it also used higher brain functions other animals lack. I'm not saying they were fully rational, but there was intelligence involved in it. People can be ingeniously stupid :D.

So no, I'm not going to say a dolphin is "smart" just because they haven't gathered enough grunting hairless meatbags together to wipe out a major population center. It may be that bigger brains aren't entirely favored, and in the long run a better survival tactic may be the total loss of intelligence to form some planet spawn running on reaction alone, but so far it's done pretty well. I wouldn't take jokes about animals being smarter because animals "have no war" (and they do, well skirmishes really, it takes more than two combatants to make a war) seriously. Intelligence isn't defined by being good, it's just defined by mental abilities.

Again, do not equate claims that humans are more intelligent with us being perfect intelligences that are actually smart enough to not kill ourselves off for stupid reasons.

And by the way, humans are designed to use tools, they are basically an extention of who we are. So yes, it took a group of humans to split the atom. Sure the tools did it, but the humans did it using the said tools. Do you say "the spider didn't catch the fly, the web did, the spider just built the web" or "the spider caught the fly using it's web"? I happen to wear glasses, and having had this pair for such a long period of time, it basically feels like an extension of me, like an organ I can take off every night. As such, making distinctions about where "we" end and our tools begin always seem arbitrary to me. For that matter, anyone that has a filling can easily say the filling is PART of them and not some totally seperate entity that isn't actually them. For that matter, if I happen to get a cybernetic enhancement, I would be fully willing to lay claim to that being a part of my body, of who I am. As such alterations to our body become more and more commonplace, I'm pretty sure the distinction of where our bodies begin and end will become more and more arbitrary.

[Darth Rotor]

The Dark Side of Secular Humanism

The Dark Side? Well, first fear, then anger, then hate, then the Dark Side. If secular Humanists can follow that progression, they can reach the Dark Side.

Tell 'em Darth sent you. You'll get a cool red light saber and two nights at teh Jedi Arms Hote. :)

DR

[The Atheist]

I've decided, for myself, at least, not to wonder which is the smartest animal. Smart is too subjective. I certainly couldn't build a beaver dam if my life depended on it, and yet I don't see beavers inventing computers. Personally, I think we are the best at manipulating our environment. Certainly the most successful at it. For good or for ill.

Bravo! Absurd argument - you saw that.

[JamesDillon]

Bravo! Absurd argument - you saw that.

Not at all. Marc might say he couldn't build a beaver dam, but I'm pretty confident that if put a human of average intelligence in a situation where he had to build a beaver-like dam to survive, he could figure it out a hell of a lot more readily than a beaver could figure out basic algebra.

That is the capacity for general intelligence, which is measurable, and which separates humans from other animals.

I'm curious, actually-- given the context of my initial comments that started this tangent, is it your position that all animals are entitled to equal moral consideration with human beings? If not, why not?

[JamesDillon]

As such, making distinctions about where "we" end and our tools begin always seem arbitrary to me.

Exactly right, and that's the point Dawkins is getting at in his various discussions of extended phenotypes. However, since no one but T'ai Chi seems to be taking the humans/tools distinction seriously, I didn't bother to follup up on it. Excellent post, though. As I've said already, intelligence is a concept entirely distinct from morality-- though the very concept of morality requires a certain degree of intelligence and capacity for abstract thinking of which only humans appear to be capable.

[The Atheist]

That is the capacity for general intelligence, which is measurable, and which separates humans from other animals.

Don't you think it's as arrogant as christianity's position on god-likeness to presume that we are "smarter" than anything else? According to you, we are, fine. I believe it's fully opposable thumbs which gave us the opportunity to fashion tools. There are people who believe it's because god gave humans the Earth and the animals on it.

No argument there, you have your opinion and I have the right opinion.*

I'm curious, actually-- given the context of my initial comments that started this tangent, is it your position that all animals are entitled to equal moral consideration with human beings? If not, why not?

I don't remember anything about morality or moral equivalency and it seems to me to be another absurd subject. You're not trying to compare apples to oranges even, you're trying to compare apples and corn flake packets.

*According to me.

[Dark Jaguar]

And in fact on further thinking about it, the internet can be considered one massive interconnected extension of who we are. Once we get those cybernetics installed, the line dividing the two becomes almost impossible to find. If we start "net diving" and flying all around the internet, it's hard to say that we aren't in fact whatever memory allocation our awareness would then be inhabiting, and indeed should it get to the point where some people start willingly finding some very complicated way to actually unite two concii together, the line seperating two people pretty much vanishes.

Ya know, Star Trek always paints the borg as this unspeakably evil entity. For the most part, the attacks, the total enslavement and robbing of free will, etc, they are right, but the part about people joining a collective awareness doesn't seem all that bad to me, and so long as (assuming this is ever actually possible) any groups getting together to do this thing always do so of their own will, I don't think I could find fault with such entities.

[Dark Jaguar]

Don't you think it's as arrogant as christianity's position on god-likeness to presume that we are "smarter" than anything else? According to you, we are, fine. I believe it's fully opposable thumbs which gave us the opportunity to fashion tools. There are people who believe it's because god gave humans the Earth and the animals on it.

That's all well and good, except there's the third option, which is just going where the evidence leads. So far humans are the ones who have shown the most capability in solving complex and general puzzles, not dolphins or great apes or elephants. They certainly are very intelligent though. It's one thing to believe that if they could manipulate things then dolphins would be at our level. It's another to actually have the evidence to back that up. I for one would welcome our new porpoid rulers.

[JamesDillon]

Don't you think it's as arrogant as christianity's position on god-likeness to presume that we are "smarter" than anything else?
To the contrary, I believe it's arrogant ideologically-driven blindness to refuse to admit the obvious. Human beings have greater intellectual capacity than other animals. There is simply no basis from which to argue otherwise. I note that you haven't defended your "dolphins are smarter because they don't believe in God" nonsense since your first or second post on this topic. Can we at least agree that that is an absurd argument?

According to you, we are, fine. I believe it's fully opposable thumbs which gave us the opportunity to fashion tools. There are people who believe it's because god gave humans the Earth and the animals on it.
Tools are the effect of our superior intelligence, not the cause of it. As I've said before, it's the capacity for abstract thought, with its attendant development of culture, that primarily distinguishes humans from other animals. If dolphins had a sophisticated language, on par with English, that included the ability to convey abstract meaning and to organize highly complex social cooperation, and showed the same level of general problem-solving capacity, I would concede that they're as intelligent as humans regardless of their inability to work a remote control.

I don't remember anything about morality or moral equivalency and it seems to me to be another absurd subject. You're not trying to compare apples to oranges even, you're trying to compare apples and corn flake packets.

Did you even bother to read the thread before jumping in with your absurd dolphins-don't-believe-in-God point? The discussion was about whether "secular humanism" is unacceptably biased because it excludes other sentient, intelligent beings from its moral scope and might provide grounds for discrimination against them. The whole point of the discussion was the articulation of those human features that entitle us to a higher level of moral consideration than other animals, and specifically what traits an extraterrestrial life form would need to demonstrate in order to qualify for equivalent concern.

[JamesDillon]

Ya know, Star Trek always paints the borg as this unspeakably evil entity. For the most part, the attacks, the total enslavement and robbing of free will, etc, they are right, but the part about people joining a collective awareness doesn't seem all that bad to me, and so long as (assuming this is ever actually possible) any groups getting together to do this thing always do so of their own will, I don't think I could find fault with such entities.

Ender's Game made a similar point with the sentient bee-like insects who shared a collective awareness. It's interesting to speculate what such a collective sentience might be like.

(This is a trivial post-- just wanted to throw that out there).

[Kimpatsu]

"Building a better world" somehow people with that intention tend to worry me.
So you just sit back and do nothing, even if your neighbour is dying right in front of you? :rolleyes:

[Dark Jaguar]

Ender's Game made a similar point with the sentient bee-like insects who shared a collective awareness. It's interesting to speculate what such a collective sentience might be like.

(This is a trivial post-- just wanted to throw that out there).

Well it would just be one awareness at that point. It may be vastly "expanded", but in terms of just many disparate becoming one, I think it would just be exactly as described, none of the individuals cease to exist, they just stop being seperate, it's just one big awareness. I doubt much more thought needs to go into that.

[Achán hiNidráne]

"Building a better world" somehow people with that intention tend to worry me.

As well they should:


The Operative:
If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer -- or did you think that none of this was your fault?

Mal:
I don't murder children.

The Operative:
I do. If I have to.

Mal:
Why? Do you even know why they send you?

The Operative:
It is not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.

Mal:
So me and mine got to lie down and die so you can live in your better world?

The Operative:
I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there--any more than there is for you. Malcom, I'm a monster. What I do is evil, I have no illusions about it. But it must be done.

--Serenity,
Joss Whedon.

[The Atheist]

Ender's Game made a similar point with the sentient bee-like insects who shared a collective awareness. It's interesting to speculate what such a collective sentience might be like.
(This is a trivial post-- just wanted to throw that out there).

So trivial that, in fact, you've just answered nearly all of the questions you posed in the post above.

Genius!

Just to give you a stage further, a quote from your last post:

To the contrary, I believe it's

(Re-sizing mine.)

In my posts I noted two absurdities:

1 That dolphins would believe in a god.

2 Attempts to compare intelligence, possibly even attempts to define intelligence.

Also:

Did you even bother to read the thread before jumping in with your absurd dolphins-don't-believe-in-God point?

My answer was given as I thought you were talking about something I'd said; I'm well aware of what the thread has covered.

And one last hint:

I guess you could make that argument, but I don't think very many people who describe themselves as secular humanists would be likely to exclude other sentient species from moral consideration merely because they lack human DNA (or DNA entirely, for that matter). That kind of closed-mindedness seems more appropriate to theistic beliefs of the sort that hold that mankind was created in the divine image.

(Bolding mine.)

[EGarrett]

I note that you haven't defended your "dolphins are smarter because they don't believe in God" nonsense since your first or second post on this topic. Can we at least agree that that is an absurd argument?By that logic, if I cracked my skull right now and ripped my brains out with a claw hammer, it would make me smarter. Just think of all the dumb ideas I'll never have...

[The Atheist]

By that logic, if I cracked my skull right now and ripped my brains out with a claw hammer, it would make me smarter. Just think of all the dumb ideas I'll never have...

Mate, "atheist" is one of those exceptions to the "i before e" rule, also you've credited the comment back to front.

Have you already had the hammer out?

[EGarrett]

Mate, "atheist" is one of those exceptions to the "i before e" rule, also you've credited the comment back to front.

Have you already had the hammer out?Actually, saying it was you via JamesDillon was correct.

I was responding to your argument, which was paraphrased/brought up again by Dillon.

[The Atheist]

Actually, saying it was you via JamesDillon was correct.
I was responding to your argument, which was paraphrased/brought up again by Dillon.


No. The paraphrasing bit is right, but the way you've credited the quote makes it very unclear who did what and since none of it is a direct quote of mine, I don't want it accredited to me.

Thanks.

[Dave1001]

Here's the relevance. You're comparing humans vs. non-humans. But I think it's rather arbitrary, maybe even misleading to draw the line there. We might as well say primates are smarter than non-primates, or brained-lifeforms are smarter than non-brained lifeforms.

After all it is brained lifeforms that split the atom. Okay, okay I admit I'm being misleading by making the class so big. So it's primates that split the atom. Still too big a class? Okay, it's organisms smart enough to figure out how to split atoms. Whoops, there went most humans who ever lived out of that class.

I'm disappointed that the discussion has completely side-stepped my last post, given its continuing relevance to the discussion. Atheist argues that humans are not alone in the class of life forms with intelligence capable of advanced problem solving equivalent to or greater than splitting the atom. JamesDillon argues that humans are apparently uniquely intelligent because they have split the atom and accomplished equivalent technological feats. My point, above, is that even most humans aren't in that class of intelligence, and are as much along for the ride as dolphins, chimps, elephants, and all other appparently not sufficiently intelligent life forms to be innovation-contributors in 2006. Thus the relevant line of demarcation (unless one is simply trying to backwards rationalize a preference for anthrocentric privilege) is between a cognitive elits subset of humans and all other life forms, human and non-human.

[The Atheist]

Atheist argues that humans are not alone in the class of life forms with intelligence capable of advanced problem solving equivalent to or greater than splitting the atom.

DON'T MISQUOTE ME! I did NOT say that at all. Go check it out.

[NeilC]

The downside of being an atheist for me is not believing in life after death. I'd say I've made a mess of large parts of this life. Would be good to really believe there was another one.

[Dave1001]

DON'T MISQUOTE ME! I did NOT say that at all. Go check it out.

I thought you were saying that humans are not alone in the class of intelligent life forms. That at the least dolphins and elephants belonged there too (if not ahead of us). Is that incorrect?

[JamesDillon]

So trivial that, in fact, you've just answered nearly all of the questions you posed in the post above.

Genius!
1. No, I didn't.

2. I wasn't talking to you, anyway.



Just to give you a stage further, a quote from your last post:

(Re-sizing mine.)
I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.

In my posts I noted two absurdities:

1 That dolphins would believe in a god.
Actually what you said was:
I see I'm not the first to point this ridiculous statement out. Given that well over half of all humans believe in some kind of god, I'd argue that most species could be considered smarter than us; when elephants and dolphins start building churches, then I'll reconsider.
In other words, dolphins are smarter than people because they don't believe in God. Right.

2 Attempts to compare intelligence, possibly even attempts to define intelligence.
It's an "absurdity" that would appear to be common practice in the scientific community:

Even though we humans write the textbooks and may justifiably be suspected of bias, few doubt that we are the smartest creatures on the planet. Many animals have special cognitive abilities that allow them to excel in their particular habitats, but they do not often solve novel problems. Some of course do, and we call them intelligent, but none are as quick-witted as we are.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C1E5D-B9BA-1422-B9BA83414B7F0103&sc=I100322
You've yet to actually address the argument that a general intelligence attribute, defined as a capacity for abstract thought and general problem-solving, is both shared by most animals and is measurable between species just as it is within species. I don't see what's implausible about that, and I doubt you can explain it to me.


And one last hint:



(Bolding mine.)
Instead of giving "hints," how about telling me what the hell you're talking about? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Yes, I suspect that theists would be more likely to show prejudice against a sentient extraterrestrial life-form than self-described secular humanists would. If you have some point about that, would you kindly make it?

No. The paraphrasing bit is right, but the way you've credited the quote makes it very unclear who did what and since none of it is a direct quote of mine, I don't want it accredited to me.

Thanks.
Fair enough point; EGarrett, feel free to quote the actual post, which I've quoted above, in which The Atheist makes that very argument.

I'm disappointed that the discussion has completely side-stepped my last post, given its continuing relevance to the discussion. Atheist argues that humans are not alone in the class of life forms with intelligence capable of advanced problem solving equivalent to or greater than splitting the atom. JamesDillon argues that humans are apparently uniquely intelligent because they have split the atom and accomplished equivalent technological feats. My point, above, is that even most humans aren't in that class of intelligence, and are as much along for the ride as dolphins, chimps, elephants, and all other appparently not sufficiently intelligent life forms to be innovation-contributors in 2006. Thus the relevant line of demarcation (unless one is simply trying to backwards rationalize a preference for anthrocentric privilege) is between a cognitive elits subset of humans and all other life forms, human and non-human.
Actually, Dave, I think your last post has already received all the attention it deserves:
I think you're starting to slip into nonsense...Dave. ;)
"Brained organisms are more intelligent than non-brained organisms?" There's nothing even intelligible in that, and since Patricio quite rightly criticized my response to the last of your truly absurd arguments, I thought it best to simply ignore this one, since, other than sitting with my mouth agape at the fact that you apparently thought it a worthwhile contribution to the conversation, I simply had no civil response to make. I guess that's just my brained-centrism showing.

[Dave1001]

Actually, Dave, I think your last post has already received all the attention it deserves:

"Brained organisms are more intelligent than non-brained organisms?" There's nothing even intelligible in that, and since Patricio quite rightly criticized my response to the last of your truly absurd arguments, I thought it best to simply ignore this one, since, other than sitting with my mouth agape at the fact that you apparently thought it a worthwhile contribution to the conversation, I simply had no civil response to make. I guess that's just my brained-centrism showing.

Well, one can't force the unwilling to discuss ideas, but I disagree that the post was unintelligible in the context of the discussion. I welcome anyone else to take up the topic with me though, about where the appropriate line of demarcation is in separating intelligent life capable of splitting atoms from other life. Is it as anthrocentric as JamesDillon suggests, or is a subpopulation significantly fewer than all humans as I suspect. :)

[JamesDillon]

Well, one can't force the unwilling to discuss ideas, but I disagree that the post was unintelligible in the context of the discussion. I welcome anyone else to take up the topic with me though, about where the appropriate line of demarcation is in separating intelligent life capable of splitting atoms from other life. Is it as anthrocentric as JamesDillon suggests, or is a subpopulation significantly fewer than all humans as I suspect. :)
Of course the subpopulation capable of splitting the atom is smaller than the group of all humans, Dave. No oen ever suggested that it wasn't. But your point that intelligence can be measured at different levels is simply trivial. Yes, for what it's worth, "brained organisms" are more intelligent than "non-brained organisms," and some humans are more intelligent than other humans. As I've said, many times, it's clear that the average human possesses a significantly greater degree of intelligence than the smartest dolphin or elephant. Try teaching a dolphin basic algebra, or a language as complex as colloquial English. There simply is no comparison. Once again, this discussion began in the search for some qualitiative distinction between humans and other "sentient" life forms, on the one hand, and other life forms on the other, the goal of which was to articulate some principled justification for giving greater moral consideration to the former group over the interests of the latter. I believe that the degree of intelligence and self-awareness demonstrated by humans and other "intelligent" beings living elsewhere in the universe justifies that distinction. As you apparently don't, what do you suggest is the appropriate basis for denying monkeys and dolphins the right to vote?

Edit: On further reflection, though, I suspect that the population of humans capable of learning the science and mathematics necessary to split the atom is actually a pretty substantial part of the human race, despite the fact that very few of us ever acquire such knowledge. When discussing intelligence as the potential to learn, we shouldn't restrict ourselves to the individuals who actually realize that potential. Under a properly structured educational program, I would speculate that even a person of average intelligence could probably master advanced mathematics and physics.

[elliotfc]

Secular humanism, and secular humanists, are essentially defined by what they *aren't*, which is why I've never taken it/them very seriously. That and all of the back-slapping. It's a religion, innit?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The downside of being an atheist for me is not believing in life after death. I'd say I've made a mess of large parts of this life. Would be good to really believe there was another one.

An atheist doesn't *necessarily* have to believe that there is no life after death, correct? Although I doubt there are more than 5 atheists in circulation who do, maybe not even that.

I think a good hunk of atheists feel liberated by not believing in life after death.

Sometimes I think that it would be good to believe that there was no life after death, for similar reasons as you mention. I suspect I have a vague understanding of how much I have hurt certain people in my life, but I believe I'll *really* appreciate the reality only in the next one.

-Elliot

[NeilC]

An atheist doesn't *necessarily* have to believe that there is no life after death, correct? Although I doubt there are more than 5 atheists in circulation who do, maybe not even that.

I think a good hunk of atheists feel liberated by not believing in life after death.

Sometimes I think that it would be good to believe that there was no life after death, for similar reasons as you mention. I suspect I have a vague understanding of how much I have hurt certain people in my life, but I believe I'll *really* appreciate the reality only in the next one.

-Elliot

I would have thought that, in the absence of evidence, an atheist won't believe in the afterlife.

I don't find it in the least bit liberating then then I've nothing to be liberated from. I imagine if I'd been brought up with fire and brimstone teachings then it might be nice to cast off the cloak of guilt and fear.

[Dave1001]

As you apparently don't, what do you suggest is the appropriate basis for denying monkeys and dolphins the right to vote?

Well, I see voting more from the realist perspective: that its use is in getting populations to accept ruling regimes. As such, I don't see the need in enfranchising monkey and dolphins until there seems to be a substantial likelihood of a monkey/dolphin rebellion. :D

But beyond that, I think enfranchisement may already be extended far beyond its utilitarian value. We are likely at greater risk of dying because enfranchisement has been extended to people who don't meet fundamental threshholds of critical thinking and rational decision making, in my opinion. Allowing enfranchisement for folks who don't grasp fundamental the fundamental scientific priniples underlying stem cell research and near earth object avoidance is skewing rational resource allocation in a way not dissimilar from if we allow monkeys and dolphins to vote.

I understand that where you and I differ is whether it's a utlilitarian use of resources to try to educate the entire human population on these differences by whatever means necessary. But one could argue that primates like Koko could also be educated on these issues on their own terms and then granted a vote.

[Dave1001]

Edit: On further reflection, though, I suspect that the population of humans capable of learning the science and mathematics necessary to split the atom is actually a pretty substantial part of the human race, despite the fact that very few of us ever acquire such knowledge. When discussing intelligence as the potential to learn, we shouldn't restrict ourselves to the individuals who actually realize that potential. Under a properly structured educational program, I would speculate that even a person of average intelligence could probably master advanced mathematics and physics.

That's a fair question, and I don't pretend to know the answer to it, although I doubt that that's the case. I suspect that your (and my, and most people's) intuition is skewed on this topic. In a phenomenon probably similar to how people ascribe human motivations and feelings to non-human animals, I think people who have have cognitive advantages relative to others tend to ascribe the same advantages to all or most people. And I think it also happens in reverse (people assuming they can understand what people far more intelligent than them understand).

I'm open to the possibility that the most intelligent people are capable of things that most others are not, including understanding and applying certain abstract principles. I think it's also likely that there's a greater distance in intelligence between the smartest people and people of modal (most typical) intelligenace, than between people of modal intelligence and chimpanzees of modal chimpanzee intelligence. For example, the personal material resource gap between people with the greatest self-made wealth and modal humans is far greater than the personal material resource gap between modal humans and modal chimpanzees.

[JamesDillon]

But beyond that, I think enfranchisement may already be extended far beyond its utilitarian value. We are likely at greater risk of dying because enfranchisement has been extended to people who don't meet fundamental threshholds of critical thinking and rational decision making, in my opinion. Allowing enfranchisement for folks who don't grasp fundamental the fundamental scientific priniples underlying stem cell research and near earth object avoidance is skewing rational resource allocation in a way not dissimilar from if we allow monkeys and dolphins to vote.
I agree with you about the limitations and drawbacks of democracy, but I do think there are compelling moral reasons to give each person some say in public affairs, despite the fact that people vary quite widely in their knowledge and judgment about such matters. I'm as disturbed as anyone about the fact that most of the voting public has virtually no interest or awareness about most public issues, but I don't think that any sort of ruling elite system (beyond the de facto one we more or less have now) could be defended as consistent with the regard for egalitarianism and "inalienable rights" that define the post-Enlightenment era; moreover, I don't see how such a system could be prevented from collapsing into another hereditary aristocracy, with its attendant injustices, of the sort practiced in most of the world for most of history.

I understand that where you and I differ is whether it's a utlilitarian use of resources to try to educate the entire human population on these differences by whatever means necessary. But one could argue that primates like Koko could also be educated on these issues on their own terms and then granted a vote.
One could argue that, but that argument would necessarily rest on the false premise that Koko is capable of being "educated" about public issues. I see no evidence whatsoever that gorillas or chimps have the intellectual capacity to understand abstractions such as notions of politics, justice, etc. Actually I remember reading somewhere that some critics have suggested that Koko doesn't really "understand" her rudimentary sign language in the sense that we do, but has simply been conditioned to associate certain gestures with certain events. Whether or not that is true, there's an enormous difference between understanding a gesture for "banana" and understanding the concept of democratic government.

[elliotfc]

I would have thought that, in the absence of evidence, an atheist won't believe in the afterlife.

But an atheist doesn't have to be an atheist because of the "absence of evidence" deal. -Elliot

[SusanB-M1]

The downside of being an atheist for me is not believing in life after death. I'd say I've made a mess of large parts of this life. Would be good to really believe there was another one.

My wise aunt used to say to people who said, 'I should have done/said/etc...', 'No, you did the best you could at the time.' To think that way isn't always easy of course, but it does save more time for thinking/acting in the present.

[EGarrett]

No. The paraphrasing bit is right, but the way you've credited the quote makes it very unclear who did what and since none of it is a direct quote of mine, I don't want it accredited to me.

Thanks.If you're only interested in arguing spelling and punctuation, you're more than welcome to Leave My Thread (c). Thanks.

[The Atheist]

The downside of being an atheist for me is not believing in life after death. I'd say I've made a mess of large parts of this life. Would be good to really believe there was another one.

Well, that's why there are christians! Do you think for even a millisecond that if there were no "afterlife" with religion that people would go to church week after week and shell out money?

I'd be bloody interested in swapping cock-ups with you! I've made more than my fair share of mistakes in life, some of them rather large ones, but you shouldn't dwell on them. You say you'd like another chance at life - well, maybe all you need is a different perspective on this one. And hey, you're not dead yet and where there's life there's hope. I know of one poster in this thread who has to have a machine read the posts for her, yet she's an incurable optimist. Life's not just what you make it, it's also what you decide makes it worthwhile. Even mistakes are good if you learn from them and you obviously have.

I have no idea what age you are, but the mere fact that you've overcome personal issues and problems without having to resort to worship some fake god shows that you have some balls! Accordingly, you're on my "good guy" list, and maybe you should be on your own one.

Cheers

[HarryKeogh]

I'm a bit late on this thread so let me just say I'm a proud member of the AHA.

That is all.

Hail Satan!

[elliotfc]

I have no idea what age you are, but the mere fact that you've overcome personal issues and problems without having to resort to worship some fake god shows that you have some balls! Accordingly, you're on my "good guy" list, and maybe you should be on your own one.

I think that people overcome personal issues and problems in a variety of ways, and I'm not the kind of person that looks down on others who overcome problems in ways that I am not down with. Does this exclude me from your good guy list, and if so, does that matter? You seem like a strong fellow so don't hold anything back.

-Elliot

[The Atheist]

I thought you were saying that humans are not alone in the class of intelligent life forms. That at the least dolphins and elephants belonged there too (if not ahead of us). Is that incorrect?

This answer is for both you, Dave1001, and James Dillon who has a bit of a bee in his bonnet as well.

Yes, that is roughly how I feel about animalian intelligence. What Jimmy is failing constantly to see is that he has an idea of what constitutes intelligence and I have a completely different one. Quoting websites is going to prove nothing as he will obviously find those which agree with his rather limited vision.

Asking whether animals can learn a language, algebra or how to split the atom is an absolute absurdity and I'm confident that thinking of that sort reinforces my position. I'm sure elephants don't think we're stupid because we don't converse with tham.

To me, the question of which animals are intelligent is a little akin to a sports thread where there are constant attempts to decide which is and which isn't a "sport" and all that results is a circular argument as there is just too much subjectivity involved. I don't believe that there is a genuine measure of intelligence which is not 100% biased towards human intelligence - for a start, since our entire mathematical system is based on the decimal system simply because we have 10 fingers, a dolphin is going to struggle with it. Accordingly, I don't accept any of the currently accepted definitions of intelligence testing as having any relevance to non-human intelligence.

And if not being able to learn English makes animals dumb, then humans must be really thick since we can't learn their language either and as Jimmy has pointed out, animals are dumb!

Given that humanists are first and foremost realists, I doubt this type of question comes up on humanist agendas - Susan can tell us if she's still here - as humanism must naturally have respect for the habitat of humans, and with no other animals or plants around we'd soon be: A) bored and B) dead.

[SkeptiKilt]

If you don't regret a number things you've done, you haven't done much.

And when the Flying Spaghetti Monster gathers me up in His Noodly Appendages, I'd rather regret things I've done than things I haven't done.

[JamesDillon]

This answer is for both you, Dave1001, and James Dillon who has a bit of a bee in his bonnet as well.

Do you eat animals? Wear their skins? Support their continuing disenfranchisement? Please explain how any of these things are consistent with your apparent world view. Plants, too, come to think of it-- if there's no such thing as objective, measurable intelligence, why aren't apple trees entitled to the same degree of respect and moral consideration as human beings are?

[Darth Rotor]

I'm curious, actually-- given the context of my initial comments that started this tangent, is it your position that all animals are entitled to equal moral consideration with human beings? If not, why not?
Let's start with the food animals, which includes dogs. (Sioux were recorded as eating dogs by Lewis and Clark, for example.) If we accepted cannibalism as a universal norm, and not an abberation, we could begin to find a path to offering moral equality to animals. That habit seems to be rare, thought not extinct, among humans. Animals are rationally assigned second class citizenship. When animals can set the terms, they get to change that relationship. I see no hypocrisy there, nor a metirocracy. In some instances, for example a hungry wolf pack and The Atheist out on the frozen tundra somewhere, the hungry wolfpack changes the relationship and has dinner.

Life isn't a democracy, it's very much a matter of might makes right in this context.

Watch out for the microbes, they are sneaky! :eye-poppi

DR

[The Atheist]

Enter John Cleese, dressed in Ministry of Silly Walks suit:

Cleese: Do you eat animals?

The Atheist: Yes, but only animals reared in sanitary surroundings like battery cages for hens and stalls/crates for pigs. I make an exception for whale meat since the Japanese have such humane and hygienic methods of obtaining it. Also I have been known to eat lamb chops from lambs killed by the Halal method since a lamb having its throat cut vertically is so much more humane than the horrific western practice of using a pole-axe.

Dolphins are acceptable as a soup, along with shark-fin, provided the fins come from live sharks which have been returned finless to the ocean. After all, recycling is king! I used to like dog, but I always struggled to find a butcher who beat the animal for the required time prior to strangling it, so as to keep the blood in the meat for better flavour.

Cleese: Wear their skins?

The Atheist: The only animal skins I wear are those from animals I have killed personally, or from harp seal cubs which have been beaten to death humanely with clubs. I may make exception for feather costumes as long as the feathers have been plucked from live birds.

Cleese: Support their continuing disenfranchisement?

The Atheist: No, animals should benefit from universal voting rights. Humans, being so much smarter than other animals, will have no trouble finding a means of educating dumb animals in such a simple concept. Vote for The Atheist and be beaten or eaten. Vote for St. Francis of Assisi and live comfortably in a church.

Cleese: Please explain how any of these things are consistent with your apparent world view.

The Atheist: Please explain where there is any moral dilemma, or even link, between potential animalian intelligence and whether I use their dead skin as clothing or anything else. The actual human skull I use as an ashtray is a case in point, although it sometimes does get mixed up with the gorilla-hand hatrack next to the ivory keys of my piano.

Cleese: Plants, too, come to think of it-- if there's no such thing as objective, measurable intelligence, why aren't apple trees entitled to the same degree of respect and moral consideration as human beings are?

The Atheist: Certainly, we'll put that on the agenda next time. to date, we have only been concerned with animalian intelligence. I'm going to ask Dorothy Stokes, the medium, to contact the spirit of Richard III (I think: no doubt brodski or Susan MB-1 can advise if I have the right monarch) who was most famous for having long conversations with elms. I'm all for it personally, I have a persimmon which gives twice as much fruit as its neighbouring tree. the difference? One listens to Bach, the other Iron Maiden. Can you guess which is which?

[The Atheist]

I think that people overcome personal issues and problems in a variety of ways, and I'm not the kind of person that looks down on others who overcome problems in ways that I am not down with. Does this exclude me from your good guy list, and if so, does that matter? You seem like a strong fellow so don't hold anything back.

-Elliot

I thought I'd sent this reply, so if I've doubled up, apologies - I can't see it here anyway.

The only way it matters is on the odd occasion that someone overcomes their problems by "finding god" and using religion as a crutch to bear their troubles with, because I believe that approach is not solving problems, just hiding them and it's a gutless way out. Whether or not you end up my good guys list - time will tell!

[Dancing David]

No, there isn't. I used one of our greatest achievements as an example, but frankly even a low-brow couch potato is still smarter than a dolphin. I can't believe we're having a serious debate about this.




Ah, the 'I know I am right argument', some sceptic you are!

So what makes you think dolphins can't learn?

have you evidence to back your claim?

[JamesDillon]

Ah, the 'I know I am right argument', some sceptic you are!

So what makes you think dolphins can't learn?

have you evidence to back your claim?

Actually, this discussion has made me start to doubt my assertion that most people are smarter than dolphins or monkeys.

But not in the way you'd like to think.

[JamesDillon]

Enter John Cleese, dressed in Ministry of Silly Walks suit:
Hilarious. I am cracking up on the inside.

Now, if you've finished trying to deflect the question, how about answering it? How do you justify eating meat, wearing leather, and denying voting rights to ostriches and oak trees?

[The Atheist]

Now, if you've finished trying to deflect the question, how about answering it? How do you justify eating meat, wearing leather, and denying voting rights to ostriches and oak trees?

I don't.

[elliotfc]

The only way it matters is on the odd occasion that someone overcomes their problems by "finding god" and using religion as a crutch to bear their troubles with, because I believe that approach is not solving problems, just hiding them and it's a gutless way out.

Let's come up with a working example, and please offer another if you'd like.

Let's say we have a heroin addict. In and out of rehab, in and out of jail. He "finds God". Becomes a religious adherent. Lives 40 more years, never uses heroin again, and then he dies.

Question time...
1) Did the guy overcome the heroin problem or not?
2) If "finding God" is a crutch, what specifically could replace "finding God", and subsequently also serve as an anti-heroin inhibitor, that would *not* be a crutch?
3) Do you use crutches (speaking figuratively of course)?
4) Do you agree that sometimes people need crutches?
5) Did the ex-heroin user "hide" from his problems by attending church or believing in God?
6) Would you have a better attitude for the ex-heroin user if he lived the rest of his life hanging with junkies all day long?
7) Addicts who are told to avoid friends, places, and activities that in their past have been associated with indulgence in drugs...are they also hiding from their problems?
8) Do you think individuals should care what you think about them, as far as being gutless or what not?


These questions are quite specific to the example I provided, if the example is a bad one we could come up with another one, if you're interested.

This is a general question.

Do you think that all religious people are gutless?


-Elliot

[JamesDillon]

I don't.

Just so we're 100% clear, then, it is your position that oak trees are morally entitled to participate in the process of democratic government?

Fair enough; at least you're consistent. I'm afraid this concludes our discussion, though, as I'm happily in the camp of evil speciesist oppressors.

[SkeptiKilt]

Oak trees have the right to vote if they can get to the polling place.

[Dave1001]

Actually, this discussion has made me start to doubt my assertion that most people are smarter than dolphins or monkeys.

But not in the way you'd like to think.

Welcome to my world. :)

[Dave1001]

Oak trees have the right to vote if they can get to the polling place.

Enter the ADA (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm).

[SkeptiKilt]

I didn't know that "wooden" was a disability.

[The Atheist]

Oak trees have the right to vote if they can get to the polling place.

Funny you should bring that up, I've been following up on it and Dorothy Stokes has e mailed me to say that she managed to have a word with George III (n.b. definitely George III, not Richard III - I knew it was a III and not Davis Love and I really should have known it wasn't Lionheart) and apparently he repeated a statement on behalf of all trees which mentions the right to vote.

Dorothy was kind enough to e mail me a copy of the ectoplasmal transcript of the message:

"Trees helped create this paradise you live in, a paradise which had prevailed for nearly 300 million years before all of Bob's creatures and plants were infested with a low-life, cockroach-sheltering, vermin-infest, arrogant species of insanely violent, genocidal mammals. 'Bring back the dinosaurs!' we screamed in unison, but alas, having got rid of the bloody great, fat, farting seismosauri, our lovely interlude of 64-odd million years is shattered by the rise of humans.

Never mind a pod of seismosaur eating fifteen fully-grown deciduous trees an hour - humans can get rid of fifty thousand years' growth in ten minutes; Agent Orange you call it? Funny, we call it Stupid Human!

No we won't vote in your pathetic elections, we won't pander to your puny goals and desires and lower ourselves to communicate with you - why would we? - we won't even shed a tear as the last tree in the Great Amazon Basin crashes to the ground. I've made a note in the diary to check in with humanity again in 2 million years' time. We've managed 300 million so far, so I don't see hanging on for another couple posing too much problem, you can't cut us all down! And let's see how humans' society looks in 2 million years.

There are individual trees older than your pyramids! Where were YOU when Jesus got nailed to one of my branches? Now there's a human use of tree I do approve of. Gibbet anyone?"

[The Atheist]

Ok, let's do this, it's a little closer to the original topic than trees' rights, and even better, it's a valid topic, surely trees = botany = biology = science, should be in science.
Let's come up with a working example, and please offer another if you'd like.
Let's say we have a heroin addict. In and out of rehab, in and out of jail. He "finds God". Becomes a religious adherent. Lives 40 more years, never uses heroin again, and then he dies.
Example is fine, heroin, alcohol, whatever. It could easily work with AlAnon, which got thoroughly discussed a few weeks back.
Question time...
1) Did the guy overcome the heroin problem or not?
Obviously, he doesn't do it any more.
2) If "finding God" is a crutch, what specifically could replace "finding God", and subsequently also serve as an anti-heroin inhibitor, that would *not* be a crutch?
This calls for a bit of assumption, but I think from your post, the route of the addict is: he finds god, gains the power from his belief to go cold-turkey and just walks away from the needles, thereafter walking the straight and narrow, now with the support and help of his family and church?
Ok.

As The Atheist, I'm going to say: he has found the need and strength within himself to fight the addiction and has ceded the power to a god because, having been a lifelong jailbird and bottom-dweller, he is unlikely to feel good enough about himself to believe that he actually has the capacity within him to do it. I do know a bit about addictions and I understand that this is really the only way addictions are overcome - by choice. That choice is made either of two ways - the addict accepts that they alone have the power to change, and do, or they find that power within themselves surrendering their own strength to a god, exactly as above.

Whether or not the same situation would occur without the god is unknown, but I believe that if the strength is there, it will surface one way or the other anyway. Lots of addicts give up without a god. As to the crutch argument, obviously the believer has one, the self-contained recovering addict may have one as well, but a physical one in a support network, which I think is quite different.
3) Do you use crutches (speaking figuratively of course)?Nope, even when I had a broken ankle, I managed without the literal kind.
4) Do you agree that sometimes people need crutches?No, I think people often need help, a push or guidance, but never a crutch.
5) Did the ex-heroin user "hide" from his problems by attending church or believing in God?Not really, he's just misguided. What he's hiding is his own strength from himself, which is sad.
6) Would you have a better attitude for the ex-heroin user if he lived the rest of his life hanging with junkies all day long?Obviously not.
7) Addicts who are told to avoid friends, places, and activities that in their past have been associated with indulgence in drugs...are they also hiding from their problems?No. Hiding from a drug-dealer is not hiding from a problem - it's the exact opposite, it is facing up to one's weaknesses, acknowledging them and using a strategy to overcome them.
8) Do you think individuals should care what you think about them, as far as being gutless or what not?
Not at all. I don't care what people say or think and I certainly don't care whether people take note of what I say. I do, however, hope that what I say strikes a chord within someone, somewhere, else I wouldn't bother. Few things in life surprise me any longer and I have had reactions to lots of stuff I've written over the years, some thankful, some hateful and some just silly. Water off a duck's back, except I do always acknowledge and continue with people who I have managed to help, even if only in a very small way. Fortunately, there have been enough instances (one would be enough anyway) where I have helped people make positive changes.
These questions are quite specific to the example I provided, if the example is a bad one we could come up with another one, if you're interested.
This is a general question.
Do you think that all religious people are gutless?
-Elliot
Yes, although gutless isn't the ideal term; I'd need a word which is a combination of gutless, illogical, gullible and afraid of themselves. Because they're either using religion as a crutch, or far worse, kidding themselves that some god is responsible for the goodness they have inside them. When the opposite occurs and the very same "god" is responsible for evil rather than good, - e.g. Samuel Berkowitz, whose god inside his head told him to shoot people - we locked up Son of Sam in a straitjacket, not his god.

[CapelDodger]

Certainly, there seems to be increasingly little point in describing yourself (in the US, that is) as a "secular humanist" in order to avoid getting off on the wrong foot with people who hold negative associations with the term "atheist." And yes, I've done that in the past. Still, I'm not inclined to resort to describing myself as a UU, deist or pantheist instead, simply because those are viewpoints to which I do not subscribe. Moreover, it wouldn't do much good; deism and pantheism have already been targets of a religious backlash in America, namely the Second Great Awakening some two hundred years ago, and if it happened once, it can happen again.
You could make up your own term, and then explain it, if asked. Some people will pretend to understand and change the subject, which is also good.

[Dancing David]

Actually, this discussion has made me start to doubt my assertion that most people are smarter than dolphins or monkeys.

But not in the way you'd like to think.


So if someone doesn't just agree with your un-supported assertions then you say they are stupid? Sounds like religion and belief to me.

That is not evidence, if you define intelligence as the capacity to learn, then where is your evidence that other creatures can't learn?

Totaly lacking? Or just too lazy to support your assertions?

[JamesDillon]

So if someone doesn't just agree with your un-supported assertions then you say they are stupid? Sounds like religion and belief to me.

That is not evidence, if you define intelligence as the capacity to learn, then where is your evidence that other creatures can't learn?

Totaly lacking? Or just too lazy to support your assertions?

To the contrary, I was agreeing with you. Some people really are no more intelligent than monkeys. You've proved your point admirably, dare I say irrefutably, and I have nothing to offer against so solid a case. Congratulations.

[The Atheist]

So if someone doesn't just agree with your un-supported assertions then you say they are stupid? Sounds like religion and belief to me.

A strange sense of deja vu has come over me.......

I don't think very many people who describe themselves as secular humanists would be likely to exclude other sentient species from moral consideration merely because they lack human DNA (or DNA entirely, for that matter). That kind of closed-mindedness seems more appropriate to theistic beliefs of the sort that hold that mankind was created in the divine image.

(Bolding mine)

[The Atheist]

To the contrary, I was agreeing with you. Some people really are no more intelligent than monkeys. You've proved your point admirably, dare I say irrefutably, and I have nothing to offer against so solid a case. Congratulations.Translation: "I'm taking my ball and going home now."

[JamesDillon]

Translation: "I'm taking my ball and going home now."

Did you ever come up with an adequate response to my last question? I thought not.

[The Atheist]

Did you ever come up with an adequate response to my last question? I thought not.
If you have a look back, you'll see that each and every question has been answered. Maybe not in the vein you wished, but I have this inflexible rule about stupid questions - the dumber they are, the dumber my answer will be.

Your barrage of bull seems to be centred around a notion I find quite repugnant and, as I've stated, your attitude seems to have a lot in common with the type of arrogance I see fundamental christians displaying. It does strike me as funny that you used the same phrase yourself.

If you are able to come up with a definition of intelligence which isn't 100% biased towards humanity, or can identify what intelligence actually is, then we may have the basis for debate. Without that, all there is is disagreement and you may as well take that ball home after all. Your opinions on what constitutes intelligence so far have been nothing more than that - your opinions. Trying to engage me in a debate featuring your opinions is a mistake. You have your opinions, I have mine and neither of us is about to change because some guy on the internet is proferring a different one! Let's start at the start and make the minimum basis for any intelligence the having of a cerebral cortex. I think it's fair to say that without the structure for a brain, intelligence is pretty unlikely to exist.

Another absurd question was whether those intelligent animals, or others, should have equal rights to humans. Other than buddhists and strict vegans, I doubt anyone is capable of living up to this, so the argument is simply invalid. Whether humanists should have cognisance of animals is self-explanatory. Any humanist organist which doesn't at least have regard for other species and their importance isn't worth the handle "humanist".

Part of the problem was that you chose one of the worst possible examples of human achievement - in my eyes - that of splitting the atom. If there one single discovery or invention I would gladly renounce, it is that one. I consider it to be the low point of human endeavour. The funny part is that, once all the BS is washed away, I think you'll find our positions are not too dissimilar, aside from the definition of intelligence.
p.s. As far as I can see, your last question to me was about trees and voting. We'll just let that stand meantime.

[JamesDillon]

Against my better judgment, I'll respond to what I think are the more pressing points of this:

Another absurd question was whether those intelligent animals, or others, should have equal rights to humans. Other than buddhists and strict vegans, I doubt anyone is capable of living up to this, so the argument is simply invalid. Whether humanists should have cognisance of animals is self-explanatory. Any humanist organist which doesn't at least have regard for other species and their importance isn't worth the handle "humanist"...

p.s. As far as I can see, your last question to me was about trees and voting. We'll just let that stand meantime.
Yes, that is the question, and it's the crux of the issue that you have so far failed to address. Your insistence that there is no qualitative distinction between human beings and other organisms would annihilate any justification for excluding non-human life from the same level of moral consideration that we apply to humans. You may refer to my question as simply "stupid," and therefore refuse to give an answer that doesn't involve Monty Python, but my response to you is that it is your position that is stupid, because it leads directly to the conclusions that I have suggested. I ask you once again, then, if human intelligence and sentience is not substantially, even categorically, distinguishable from that of the lower (yes, I said lower) organisms, then on what basis can we justify exploiting other life forms for our survival and comfort? That question is the central issue here, as this whole ridiculous conversation grew out of a more interesting discussion of whether secular humanism could in theory recognize the equal rights of sentient extraterrestrial life, and specifically what features such life would need to exhibit to put it on equal standing with human beings. So, once again, please answer the question: how do you justify humans' use of other life forms for our own benefit? Under your world view, it would seem that the enslavement of African Americans for farm labor is no different than the enslavement of horses or donkeys for the same purpose. If you can't offer a serious justification for why the former is morally repulsive and the latter is not, then I'll feel free to reject your view as simply absurd.

Part of the problem was that you chose one of the worst possible examples of human achievement - in my eyes - that of splitting the atom. If there one single discovery or invention I would gladly renounce, it is that one. I consider it to be the low point of human endeavour.
I really couldn't care less what your moral assessment of splitting the atom is. As has been explained to you ad nauseam in this thread, the moral status of an achievement is entirely distinct from the degree of intelligence necessary to achieve it. Splitting the atom is among the greatest intellectual feats of humankind, and the fact that you or anyone else finds it morally repugnant is entirely beside the point.

[Dave1001]

Under your world view, it would seem that the enslavement of African Americans for farm labor is no different than the enslavement of horses or donkeys for the same purpose. If you can't offer a serious justification for why the former is morally repulsive and the latter is not, then I'll feel free to reject your view as simply absurd.

Here I think you use a loaded example that relies more on what Derbyshire would call in-group status demarcation than dispassionate reasoning. I pity anyone who is told their argument diminishes the historical enslavement of some africans. The most honest answer is that their historical enslavement is widely accepted as more morally repulsive (yes 'more', it's not necessarily binary) because it's part of the current narrative of power. This twist of the narrative flatters northeastern american elites, because it casts them as more moral than their hierarchically subordinated subjects, southerners.

[SusanB-M1]

"Do you think that all religious people are gutless?"

Definitely not. In many cases they just need to have the confidence to erase that small dot which in their minds they call God and the whole picture of everything would be complete.

Regarding your set of questions: Yes, everyone needs a crutch of some kind many times during their lives. If the religious groups could just carry on with supportive social groups, carry on having regular meetings with singing and moral teaching etc etc but just changing the words to omit God .... but it will never happen; well, not in my lifetime anyway, however optimistic I would like to feel!

ETA Apologies if I've already said this in this thread.

[Dancing David]

To the contrary, I was agreeing with you. Some people really are no more intelligent than monkeys. You've proved your point admirably, dare I say irrefutably, and I have nothing to offer against so solid a case. Congratulations.

Hmm, it seemed to me that you wre stating thatr those who didn't agree with you were less intelligent.

I have been wrong before and will be wrong again, so I say to you.

Sorry I am.

[Dancing David]

The thing that I don't get is the USA Xian fundies who view humanism as a competing religion. I am not sure that it qualifies as any more than a philosophy.

But SCOTUS did mention it in afoot note in the Roe vs. Wade case and so it has become an exagerated threat.

[JamesDillon]

Here I think you use a loaded example that relies more on what Derbyshire would call in-group status demarcation than dispassionate reasoning. I pity anyone who is told their argument diminishes the historical enslavement of some africans.
Sure, the example may be loaded to some extent for rhetorical purposes, but it's also perfectly accurate. I've offered other examples of the absurdity of The Atheist's position, for example, voting rights of oak trees. The fact remains that his/her position doesn't seem to offer any basis for distinguishing human slavery from animal exploitation, and that is the core of my disagreement with it. The example I chose might be particularly stinging, and of course I chose it for that very reason, but I don't see how it's an unfair or inaccurate charactierization of The Atheist's argument.

The most honest answer is that their historical enslavement is widely accepted as more morally repulsive (yes 'more', it's not necessarily binary) because it's part of the current narrative of power. This twist of the narrative flatters northeastern american elites, because it casts them as more moral than their hierarchically subordinated subjects, southerners.
You're getting into a different area here-- the objective vs. subjective nature of morality. I'm not necessarily saying that moral principles hold an objective truth outside of, as you put it, "the current narrative of power," and in fact I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that they don't. However, whatever their epistemological status, there are some ideas, for example that the enslavement of human beings is abhorrently evil (or that oak trees and dolphins are not entitled to vote), to which virtually everyone in contemporary Western society subscribes. We can have long discussions about how, and whether, evolving moral principles might be justified in an objective sense, but I'm assuming that The Atheist would share my view that the enslavement of human beings is a terrible crime, whereas the explotation of animals for labor is not. The Atheist might respond that he/she doesn't see any moral distinction, a view which would be perfectly consistent, but would once again leave us with nothing more to say to each other because we would have reached a point of fundamental disagreement beyond which no further argument or appeal to more basic reasons is possible.

[SusanB-M1]

I'm a bit late on this thread so let me just say I'm a proud member of the AHA.

That is all.

Hail Satan!

As a BHA member, I was of course interested in this and have just looked at the AHA website. (I'm a bit worried about your 'Hail Satan!'bit though!!)

Do you find that numbers of members are increasing and that your opinions are beginning to make some small headway in Government?

[T'ai Chi]

Oak trees have the right to vote if they can get to the polling place.

But wood they? Our wood they just leaf?

Acorny joke, I know.

[SusanB-M1]

"Given that humanists are first and foremost realists, I doubt this type of question comes up on humanist agendas - Susan can tell us if she's still here - as humanism must naturally have respect for the habitat of humans, and with no other animals or plants around we'd soon be: A) bored and B) dead."

Well, if the ages of all the members of our local group were added together, you'd arrive at a very large number, but our Chairman, Jane, works hard to set up an interesting programme of talks. Yesterday it was by the chairman of an Amnesty International group, followed by QandA. After the tea break, two members talked about a trip to a Humanist school in India they will be visiting next month,and I tried them out on the question of the intelligence of dolphins and elephants ... but we were running out of time. I'll have to prepare a talk of my own, maybe next year.

What I really must do is to try and attend one of the London meetings, but that will take a bit of organisation.

ETA Re: Elliot's questions in, I think, #118, it would be wrong to tell an addict that he can rely on God or similar words as a crutch because that would be telling him/her a lie.

[qayak]

Yes, that is the question, and it's the crux of the issue that you have so far failed to address. Your insistence that there is no qualitative distinction between human beings and other organisms would annihilate any justification for excluding non-human life from the same level of moral consideration that we apply to humans. You may refer to my question as simply "stupid," and therefore refuse to give an answer that doesn't involve Monty Python, but my response to you is that it is your position that is stupid, because it leads directly to the conclusions that I have suggested. I ask you once again, then, if human intelligence and sentience is not substantially, even categorically, distinguishable from that of the lower (yes, I said lower) organisms, then on what basis can we justify exploiting other life forms for our survival and comfort? That question is the central issue here, as this whole ridiculous conversation grew out of a more interesting discussion of whether secular humanism could in theory recognize the equal rights of sentient extraterrestrial life, and specifically what features such life would need to exhibit to put it on equal standing with human beings. So, once again, please answer the question: how do you justify humans' use of other life forms for our own benefit? Under your world view, it would seem that the enslavement of African Americans for farm labor is no different than the enslavement of horses or donkeys for the same purpose. If you can't offer a serious justification for why the former is morally repulsive and the latter is not, then I'll feel free to reject your view as simply absurd.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain (pg.20-26), Richard Dawkins puts together a great argument to support giving basic rights to apes and why this would not lead to the slipper slope of having oak trees that vote. Simply put, he points out that children have rights and cannot vote.

He begins by pointing out that humans are apes, we belong to the homo class, on the African ape branch, of the primate family tree and chimpansees belong to the chimpansee class of the same branch and tree.

He then explains ring species and how it is possible and common for two animals to belong to the same species and still not be able to breed.

He then makes a case for how very close chimps are related to us in distance and time from our common ancestor, closer than some ring species, with the only significant difference being that our intermediate ancestors are now extict while the intermediary ancestors of ring species happen to be alive.

Then he points out that killing chimpansees is equivilant to killing your own cousins using the excuse that because your uncle has died, it is perfectly okay.

It is a little more complex than this but it is a very compelling argument.

Dawkins also uses intelligence as a small part of the argument and it is the same argument that Carl Sagan, in his book Billions and Billions ( Cowritten by Ann Druyan, pg.196 - 216), gives as a basis for his argument that Roe-vs-Wade was an excellent legal decision from a scientific perspective. Although, with it being a larger portion of his argument, Sagan makes the point somewhat better.

Both Dawkins and Sagan make clear that there is a distinction between species but they also demonstrate that granting rights only to humans based on traditional thoughts has no basis in modern science. (Sagan may not have intended this point but it does follow.) So, while we can show that it is morally okay to make the distinction, the group that we grant
basic rights to, should be expanded to include several other species.

[Dave1001]

Then he points out that killing chimpansees is equivilant to killing your own cousins using the excuse that because your uncle has died, it is perfectly okay.

Let's shelve this particular until at least several decades from now when computer modeling may be good enough that we'll no longer need chimps as medical research subjects. I mean, it's enough of a hindrance that we can't use humans for a lot of this stuff.

:boxedin:

[qayak]

Let's shelve this particular until at least several decades from now when computer modeling may be good enough that we'll no longer need chimps as medical research subjects. I mean, it's enough of a hindrance that we can't use humans for a lot of this stuff.

Good! I don't like my cousins anyway. :D

[The Atheist]

Ok, thanks to the time zones, this can be finished off in just a few, short quotes:

You may refer to my question as simply "stupid," and therefore refuse to give an answer that doesn't involve Monty Python, but my response to you is that it is your position that is stupid, because it leads directly to the conclusions that I have suggested. I ask you once again, then, if human intelligence and sentience is not substantially, even categorically, distinguishable from that of the lower (yes, I said lower) organisms, then on what basis can we justify exploiting other life forms for our survival and comfort? That question is the central issue here...
I really couldn't care less what your moral assessment of splitting the atom is. As has been explained to you ad nauseam in this thread, the moral status of an achievement is entirely distinct from the degree of intelligence necessary to achieve it. Splitting the atom is among the greatest intellectual feats of humankind, and the fact that you or anyone else finds it morally repugnant is entirely beside the point.
So if someone doesn't just agree with your un-supported assertions then you say they are stupid? Sounds like religion and belief to me.
That is not evidence, if you define intelligence as the capacity to learn, then where is your evidence that other creatures can't learn?
Totaly lacking? Or just too lazy to support your assertions?
I've offered other examples of the absurdity of The Atheist's position, for example, voting rights of oak trees. The fact remains that his/her position doesn't seem to offer any basis for distinguishing human slavery from animal exploitation, and that is the core of my disagreement with it. The example I chose might be particularly stinging, and of course I chose it for that very reason, but I don't see how it's an unfair or inaccurate charactierization of The Atheist's argument.
but I'm assuming that The Atheist would share my view that the enslavement of human beings is a terrible crime, whereas the explotation of animals for labor is not.
The Atheist might respond that he/she doesn't see any moral distinction, a view which would be perfectly consistent, but would once again leave us with nothing more to say to each other because we would have reached a point of fundamental disagreement beyond which no further argument or appeal to more basic reasons is possible.
That kind of closed-mindedness seems more appropriate to theistic beliefs of the sort that hold that mankind was created in the divine image.

Then we can get back to the subject in hand. Obviously, Jimmy and my correspondence is closed and I will post back on the subject shortly. As I have said before, when your thead gets derailed, just think of me as your friendly, rolling train wreck.

P.S. Jimmy, it's a him this end too.

[JamesDillon]

Ok, thanks to the time zones, this can be finished off in just a few, short quotes:

You seem to think that quoting my posts back at me somehow makes a point. If so, it's none that I can see. I suppose if you don't care to defend your position further, then we've nothing further to say, but I note that you still haven't responded in any serious way to the question I've been asking you for two pages now.

[JamesDillon]

Then he points out that killing chimpansees is equivilant to killing your own cousins using the excuse that because your uncle has died, it is perfectly okay.

It is a little more complex than this but it is a very compelling argument.

Dawkins also uses intelligence as a small part of the argument and it is the same argument that Carl Sagan, in his book Billions and Billions ( Cowritten by Ann Druyan, pg.196 - 216), gives as a basis for his argument that Roe-vs-Wade was an excellent legal decision from a scientific perspective. Although, with it being a larger portion of his argument, Sagan makes the point somewhat better.

Both Dawkins and Sagan make clear that there is a distinction between species but they also demonstrate that granting rights only to humans based on traditional thoughts has no basis in modern science. (Sagan may not have intended this point but it does follow.) So, while we can show that it is morally okay to make the distinction, the group that we grant
basic rights to, should be expanded to include several other species.
Unfortunately I haven't read Billions and Billions, and I'm afraid I don't understand your summary of Sagan's argument well enough to comment on it. I don't really understand what Roe v. Wade has to do with anything, but if you want to try to spell it out more I'll be happy to think about it.

With respect to Dawkins, I've great respect for the man but, especially in A Devil's Chaplain, he sometimes has a tendency to pontificate outside his area of expertise.* His comparison of chimps to cousins sounds to me like a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html), of the second type described in the link:
# A differs from Z by a continuum of insignificant changes, and there is no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two can be drawn.
Therefore, there is really no difference between A and Z.

Dawkins is of course right that chimps are related to humans by a series of individuals, each of which was virtually indistinguishable from its immediate ancestor and immediate descendant, but the same is true for every other living organism. The question of how closely related is "close enough" to entitle an organism to moral and/or legal rights is a moral or legal question, not a scientific one, and therefore, while one would hope that the answer to such a moral or legal question would be informed by science, it neither has nor needs a "scientific basis."

That said, I'm not necessarily committed to exluding all non-human animals from some kind of moral consideration or recognition of rights. I think it's a discussion worth having, and perhaps a case can be made that the other apes possess attributes that should entitle them to some kind of recognition by us of their moral rights. I'll admit I'm somewhat skeptical of that idea, and I think Dawkins is well round the bend with his criticisms of "speciesism" and his comparison of boiling a lobster to inflicting torture, but as I was saying in my earlier posts in this thread before the rather pointless tangent with The Atheist et al., it is probably worthwhile to articulate some general criteria of "sentience" (a necessary but perhaps not quite sufficient component of which I think would be a high level of general intelligence) by which we might identify other forms of life that are morally entitled to the same (or nearly the same) degree of consideration that we give to human beings. Dawkins knows a lot more about apes than I do, so if it turns out that the other apes satisfy whatever criteria for sentience we ultimately identify, then fine, let's grant them some sort of weak right to life and perhaps a right not to be exploited for our benefit. Even then, though, we would have to engage in the sort of comparative assessment to which The Atheist seems opposed-- I assume that Dawkins doesn't argue that all organisms are entitled to the same degree of concern that humans and apes are (even at his most adamant I've never seen him go that far), so we'd still have to rank various organisms against each other in order to determine which fall within the magic circle of "entitled to moral respect." It sounds like Dawkins and I are advocating the same approach, he just happens to think the circle is a bit wider than I do. He may well be right about that, but either way it doesn't seem to undermine my primary point.

*I refer primarily to his essay criticizing the jury system in that book, which was fundamentally off-base because of his underlying assumption that the purpose of a jury is to facilitate finding the truth. Having studied some legal history in law school, I know that this is not and has never been the primary justification for the jury system.

[UserGoogol]

Strictly speaking, Dawkins isn't saying saying that there's no difference between Chimps and Humans, he's saying that drawing the line on the basis of species is a dumb way of going about it.

To quote his essay which is available on the Interweb (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993gaps_in_the_mind.shtml):

What's so special about humans? As I said, I don't deny that this question, unlike the aardvark question, very probably has a powerful answer. All that I am criticising is an unthinking failure to realise in the case of humans that the question even arises.

[The Atheist]

You seem to think that quoting my posts back at me somehow makes a point. If so, it's none that I can see. I suppose if you don't care to defend your position further, then we've nothing further to say, but I note that you still haven't responded in any serious way to the question I've been asking you for two pages now.
Just one final comment in response, Jimmy, I have nothing to "defend". The fact that my views differ from yours are a source of extreme satisfaction to me.

[JamesDillon]

Strictly speaking, Dawkins isn't saying saying that there's no difference between Chimps and Humans, he's saying that drawing the line on the basis of species is a dumb way of going about it.

To quote his essay which is available on the Interweb (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993gaps_in_the_mind.shtml):

I vaguely recall this essay; I read A Devil's Chaplain a couple of years ago and should probably refresh myself before commenting further (though I don't have time to do so tonight), but my initial reaction is that I agree with Dawkins that we need something more than merely the fact that we are humans and other animale aren't to justify our subordination and exploitation of them. Because I think the vague concept of "sentience" pretty well captures what we consider to be the essential characteristic that distinguishes us from the other animals and thereby morally justifies our explotation of them as ends to our own means, I would suggest that a good approach to this question would be to define the concept of sentience more precisely, with an eye toward identifying exactly what characterstics of human beings we think constitute qualitiative distinctions of a morally relevant nature between ourselves and at least the majority of other organisms. If the apes turn out to be a gray area even under a rigorously considered conception of sentience, so be it; gray areas are probably inevitable precisely for the reason Dawkins points out: that the biological spectrum is actually continuous rather than discontinuous, so drawing any bright lines may be difficult in a few places.

That, at least, is my top-of-the-head response on a Sunday night before bed. Hopefully it will stand up to Monday morning's scrutiny.

[elliotfc]

As The Atheist, I'm going to say: he has found the need and strength within himself to fight the addiction and has ceded the power to a god because, having been a lifelong jailbird and bottom-dweller, he is unlikely to feel good enough about himself to believe that he actually has the capacity within him to do it.

So there would/could be no cause and effect with the religion thing? And what if he actually *did* feel good about himself, or, better than he had in a long time? Too much specualation about a speculation perhaps.

I do know a bit about addictions and I understand that this is really the only way addictions are overcome - by choice. That choice is made either of two ways - the addict accepts that they alone have the power to change, and do, or they find that power within themselves surrendering their own strength to a god, exactly as above.

Even AlAnon refers to a higher power, right? And certainly AlAnon works closely with churches.

If there is only one way addictions are essentially overcome, it appears that "vehicles" are still in need to get people to that realization. I mean, I guess I could tell every addict that they only need to choose to overcome their addiction, and then they will.

Whether or not the same situation would occur without the god is unknown, but I believe that if the strength is there, it will surface one way or the other anyway.

Sort of a religious belief of your own, no? :)

Lots of addicts give up without a god.

Agreed, of course you know I wasn't implying that such a thing wasn't possible.

As to the crutch argument, obviously the believer has one, the self-contained recovering addict may have one as well, but a physical one in a support network, which I think is quite different.

I think we all have crutches, it's not a inherently derogatory word to me.

Nope, even when I had a broken ankle, I managed without the literal kind.
No, I think people often need help, a push or guidance, but never a crutch.

With the literal understanding, a crutch is understood to be temporarily, or, in most cases temporary.

Once you use the word "crutch" figuratively, it's up to the person to choose the situations. I think you use it as a pejorative. You use help/push/guidance as alternatives to "crutch". I don't see objective or inherent standards in circulation that could differentiate, and if so, you'd have to be skeptical about the person making the standards.

Meaning...anything in your life that helped/helps you...well that couldn't *possibly* be a crutch, now could it? You may chime in now and inform me of past crutches in your life...but do you get my point? You argue from a position of strength, so I take that into account. You show weakness (in my opinion) in your need to insult others who...let's just assume, OK wink wink...are waker than yourself.

More later, hungry. -Elliot

[The Atheist]

So there would/could be no cause and effect with the religion thing? And what if he actually *did* feel good about himself, or, better than he had in a long time? Too much specualation about a speculation perhaps.
Even AlAnon refers to a higher power, right? And certainly AlAnon works closely with churches.
AlAnon starts every meeting with their serenity prayer and god is indeed crucial to the strategy; replace the demon alcohol with the christian god, hence why indeed so many meetings are held in churches and why they are so supportive.

At its most basic precept, I do find AA hard to argue against as there's no doubt that a productive, dry alkie is infinitely preferable for family and society than a drunken lush. Like the feeding of starving children, it's an area where I do allow a bit of tolerance (but tell anyone I said that). Maybe, one day, in a completely secular world, that strength within will be harnessed without the need to resort to prayer. Have a look at the thread on AlAnon as there were a lot of posters with more info on AA than I have.
If there is only one way addictions are essentially overcome, it appears that "vehicles" are still in need to get people to that realization. I mean, I guess I could tell every addict that they only need to choose to overcome their addiction, and then they will.
Would that it were that simple - unfortunately not. I think all addicts deep down know they are addicts, but given genetic predisposition to addiction, taking the first step is usually the hardest, which is why AlAnon makes the first step the admission of the problem.
Sort of a religious belief of your own, no? :)Nope, just the result of being an atheist - the strength doesn't come from god so it can only come from within.
I think we all have crutches, it's not a inherently derogatory word to me.

With the literal understanding, a crutch is understood to be temporarily, or, in most cases temporary.

Once you use the word "crutch" figuratively, it's up to the person to choose the situations. I think you use it as a pejorative. You use help/push/guidance as alternatives to "crutch". I don't see objective or inherent standards in circulation that could differentiate, and if so, you'd have to be skeptical about the person making the standards.

Meaning...anything in your life that helped/helps you...well that couldn't *possibly* be a crutch, now could it? You may chime in now and inform me of past crutches in your life...but do you get my point? You argue from a position of strength, so I take that into account. You show weakness (in my opinion) in your need to insult others who...let's just assume, OK wink wink...are waker than yourself.

More later, hungry. -Elliot
I agree with you in most of that, I guess the difference is just semantics. When I refer to a "crutch" I indeed use it as a pejorative, as I reserve the term for religious, astrological or other mystical/mythical crutches. Physical and emotional support from real people, I classify as "support" rather than a "crutch". Please also understand that I'm not insulting people with weaknesses, only the ones who have to use religion to find their own strength.

I don't claim to be particularly strong in any way, my personal situation has simply developed thanks to never having had a support network, so I've had to find my own ways and means of dealing with things and learn from my mistakes. I provide enough support to other people not to look down on people in need.

[elliotfc]

No. Hiding from a drug-dealer is not hiding from a problem - it's the exact opposite, it is facing up to one's weaknesses, acknowledging them and using a strategy to overcome them.

I see. So...external problems do not exist? All problems are fundamentally internal? Or am I misreading you here, are you merely speaking about this instance, and this would not work for other examples?

Yes, although gutless isn't the ideal term; I'd need a word which is a combination of gutless, illogical, gullible and afraid of themselves.

I'm not content to yield the dogmatic declaration "gutless" to you. It's quite an offensive judgment to make about others, though as you and others demonstrate, it's what ubermensches do. Meaning, I see you make the judgment, and that's how I see it, if you care.

Illogical...sure, many people are illogical to others.

Afraid of themselves...not sure how you could objectively prove that.

Gullible...well, I think I'd be gullible if I accepted your dogmatic decrees, and I think you're gullible for pronouncing them so comfortably. Yeah, we're all gullible when it comes to what we believe.

Because they're either using religion as a crutch, or far worse, kidding themselves that some god is responsible for the goodness they have inside them.

I agree that if they're wrong, they are kidding themselves. But if they are wrong, that's as good a way to live as any other, unless there exist objective standards of "living" that are floating about somewhere in the universe. And if you're wrong, you're kidding yourself. Whatever. We live, whatever we believe, and whether or not we kid ourselves.

When the opposite occurs and the very same "god" is responsible for evil rather than good, - e.g. Samuel Berkowitz, whose god inside his head told him to shoot people - we locked up Son of Sam in a straitjacket, not his god.

Agreed, because whether or not that is true (god being responsible) is not all that relevant (or completely irrelevant) to our justice system.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

At its most basic precept, I do find AA hard to argue against as there's no doubt that a productive, dry alkie is infinitely preferable for family and society than a drunken lush. Like the feeding of starving children, it's an area where I do allow a bit of tolerance (but tell anyone I said that). Maybe, one day, in a completely secular world, that strength within will be harnessed without the need to resort to prayer. Have a look at the thread on AlAnon as there were a lot of posters with more info on AA than I have.

So we both have some sort of faith then. You have faith in a world where people wouldn't need to, I guess, resort to prayer. That, to me, is similar to wishing that one day nobody would need to watch sitcoms or one day people won't need to use calculators to multiply three digit numbers.

Some athletes psyche themselves up before games by screaming, or vomiting, or doing something meditative. Do they *need* to do such things? I dunno. It's easy to say *no*, they could just go out there and perform at the highest level without doing those things. And if they disagree? Who's right?

Telling people what they need to do, what they don't need to do, or, belittling those who do things differently...it seems to be fundamentally uncharitable and unfair. Even if it's not meant that way.

Nope, just the result of being an atheist - the strength doesn't come from god so it can only come from within.

Yes, you are merely being true to your beliefs, and those who have different beliefs are merely being true to those as well.

I agree with you in most of that, I guess the difference is just semantics. When I refer to a "crutch" I indeed use it as a pejorative, as I reserve the term for religious, astrological or other mystical/mythical crutches. Physical and emotional support from real people, I classify as "support" rather than a "crutch". Please also understand that I'm not insulting people with weaknesses, only the ones who have to use religion to find their own strength.

It seems like a certain manipulation of the actual meaning of the word crutch, which I find a bit more offensive than even the negative connotation.

Crutch is a useful word that doesn't necessarily mean associated to religion or astrology. I don't think it's helpful to use it in conversation, even if you do clearly state in what way you are using the word.

You make a weird differentiation...you're not insulting people with weaknesses...but...

But what if the *but* is itself a weakness? What if a person's weakness is using religion, or being religious? Is that the unforgiveable weakness?

-Elliot

[Dave1001]

It sounds like Dawkins and I are advocating the same approach, he just happens to think the circle is a bit wider than I do. He may well be right about that, but either way it doesn't seem to undermine my primary point.

And I think the circle is a bit narrower. I'm for making transparent what is functional reality anyway. A subset of humans are making social contracts to treat each other well, and to mutually treat all other humans and select other organisms with a certain amounts of decency. That's about it.

[The Atheist]

I see. So...external problems do not exist? All problems are fundamentally internal? Or am I misreading you here, are you merely speaking about this instance, and this would not work for other examples?Specifically the instance in question.
I'm not content to yield the dogmatic declaration "gutless" to you. It's quite an offensive judgment to make about others, though as you and others demonstrate, it's what ubermensches do. Meaning, I see you make the judgment, and that's how I see it, if you care.It's meant to be offensive. I do try very hard to offend religious people whenever possible.
Illogical...sure, many people are illogical to others.And the only way religious belief can be seen as any type of logic is the simple logic that, as sentient beings, we want life to continue past death. The actual dogma of all religion is absurd and illogical.
Afraid of themselves...not sure how you could objectively prove that.Sure, impossible to qualify, but as I said, it's a combination of those things, in my view.
Gullible...well, I think I'd be gullible if I accepted your dogmatic decrees, and I think you're gullible for pronouncing them so comfortably. Yeah, we're all gullible when it comes to what we believe.Disagree 100%. I believe in facts, not fairy tales. No gullibility involved. If I see, I accept. That's the exact opposite of religion which operates on faith alone.
I agree that if they're wrong, they are kidding themselves. But if they are wrong, that's as good a way to live as any other, unless there exist objective standards of "living" that are floating about somewhere in the universe. And if you're wrong, you're kidding yourself. Whatever. We live, whatever we believe, and whether or not we kid ourselves.Agree entirely. It doesn't make them bad people, just deluded.

[The Atheist]

So we both have some sort of faith then. You have faith in a world where people wouldn't need to, I guess, resort to prayer. That, to me, is similar to wishing that one day nobody would need to watch sitcoms or one day people won't need to use calculators to multiply three digit numbers.Count me in on those wishes! Don't get me started on TV and maths (or English) inability. The dumbing down of the human race is a shocking, and seemingly irreversible, trend. As mentioned in the post above, I don't believe equating belief in fact and belief in god is reasonable.
Some athletes psyche themselves up before games by screaming, or vomiting, or doing something meditative. Do they *need* to do such things? I dunno. It's easy to say *no*, they could just go out there and perform at the highest level without doing those things. And if they disagree? Who's right?Good point. At least those things are designed to channel athletes' own strength through internal mechanisms rather than praying to a god to give them strength.
Telling people what they need to do, what they don't need to do, or, belittling those who do things differently...it seems to be fundamentally uncharitable and unfair. Even if it's not meant that way.I repeat, it is meant that way when a god is involved.
Yes, you are merely being true to your beliefs, and those who have different beliefs are merely being true to those as well.Refer last sentence, first paragraph.
It seems like a certain manipulation of the actual meaning of the word crutch, which I find a bit more offensive than even the negative connotation.

Crutch is a useful word that doesn't necessarily mean associated to religion or astrology. I don't think it's helpful to use it in conversation, even if you do clearly state in what way you are using the word.

You make a weird differentiation...you're not insulting people with weaknesses...but...Ok, just a quick clarification. I would never insult a person for having a weakness - everyone has their moments of weakness or madness - just the means of dealing with it. I don't intend to devalue the word "crutch" as I really do only use it negatively in the type of sentence, such as: "I despise people who use religion/astrology/belief in fairies as a crutch". Maybe that wasn't clear earlier. If so, apologies.
But what if the *but* is itself a weakness? What if a person's weakness is using religion, or being religious? Is that the unforgiveable weakness? -ElliotNot unforgivable, just very, very disappointing. In terms of earlier posts, I agree that a recovering alcoholic who goes to church is a lot better than an unrepentant one.

Cheers

[elliotfc]

It's meant to be offensive. I do try very hard to offend religious people whenever possible.

And for this reason I won't reply to any of your posts, but thanks for your honesty.

And the only way religious belief can be seen as any type of logic is the simple logic that, as sentient beings, we want life to continue past death.

I disagree because some religious people do not believe in life after death.

The actual dogma of all religion is absurd and illogical.

Disagree 100%. I believe in facts, not fairy tales. No gullibility involved. If I see, I accept. That's the exact opposite of religion which operates on faith alone.

This is demonstrably false, Christians believe in a real thing which their eyes read quite often.

I agree that you have standards, but your objective reality is not dependent on your standards.

-Elliot

[The Atheist]

This is demonstrably false, Christians believe in a real thing which their eyes read quite often.

A much-translated hearsay account of fictional proceedings does not constitute a "real thing".

[thaiboxerken]

Humans did not split the atom.

What we built, did.

Terrorists didn't destroy the World Trade Center Towers either. The planes did.

[thaiboxerken]

This is demonstrably false, Christians believe in a real thing which their eyes read quite often.



What is this "real thing" you talk of?