1/2/10

With Whom Are All Things Permissible?

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , ,

37 comments:

  1. WhatevermanJanuary 2, 2010 at 9:24 AM

    Mariano wrote According to a biblical worldview all humans are created in God’s image and I have no right to violate you in any way.

    You're the one who used the word "fallacious", but I doubt you imagined it applied to your statements:

    According to your world view, you DO have a right to violate other people if God tells you to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. secularist10January 2, 2010 at 7:52 PM

    Mariano said:
    "According to a biblical worldview all humans are created in God’s image and I have no right to violate you in any way."

    That's fine as far as it goes, Mariano, but what really is stopping you from violating me in any way? God isn't stopping you from doing it. Hence crime and war. At the end of the day, the only thing stopping you from doing it is your own reason and the belief system that you have developed from your reason. And so, you see, we are back to where we started. It is human beings who prevent themselves from doing certain things. God may punish or reward us in the next life, but until then, it's a free-for-all.

    The presence of a benevolent God, even if it were true, in and of itself does absolutely nothing to change human behavior. Humans change human behavior. On what basis do they change their behavior? On the basis of their reason and thought. Unfortunately for the religious, there really is no way around that fact.

    Even the religious go through some thought process to figure out what is good and what is not, and then decide to actually execute those rules. The presence, or lack thereof, of a god or gods is completely irrelevant to the actual actions of people in this world and this life.

    Regarding this stuff about "the God of the Bible"--whose Bible? Which God? The God of the Old Testament or the New? Before any Christian can tell me what "God" wants me to do or not do, he must reconcile with the questions and criticisms that fellow Christians have. Should I follow the Catholic God? Or the Russian Orthodox God? Or the Presbytarian God? Or the Lutheran God? And why?

    Even if one is to play the generalist game and say "they all believe the same basic stuff at the end of the day," how does one know this? One can only come to that conclusion using one's reason... but then, if one is to use their own reason, why did you need the religion in the first place?

    "Because in a god-free universe the only thing that matters, the only imperative as it were, is survival (no one seems to know why). While there may be certain advantages in taking certain actions and avoiding others, as for instance when we seek to live in groups, the fact is that ultimately even if all species go extinct, as all surely will when the Sun explodes, it is irrelevant since we are merely spinning on a pale blue dot in the universe’s backwaters."

    This paragraph betrays a misunderstanding of what's going on here. If you come to these questions from a theistic background, and then simply cut God from the whole equation, suddenly you are sent into a moral tailspin, of course. But if you start from the fact that we are the best thing evolution has created, and we have desires, and among those desires is the desire to be as happy as possible and to live as long as possible, then you begin to see that it is we humans who are seizing our destiny and our freedom to live as well as we can in this life and this world. The cold indifference of the universe is completely irrelevant, because WE are not indifferent.

    One last quote from Mariano:
    "In a god-free universe, since all that matters is survival, I may choose to survive by feeding the poor or by eating the poor. I may pursue benevolence or malevolence."

    Wrong. Survival is furthered by certain activities but not by others. Feeding the poor furthers survival to a much greater degree than eating the poor. And "all that matters" is not survival. Survival is one thing, but we also seek a multitude of other things: happiness, pleasure, enjoyment, etc. And these things are furthered more (much more) by feeding the poor than by eating the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2010 at 8:56 PM

    Secularist10

    Though your faith in Humanity is nice. Its completely unrealistic.

    Also your starting tactic of asking which God to worship (Catholic, Easrtern Orthadox, Lutheran, ect.) is a fairly poor start. If you were asking about different religions you maye have a ground to stand on but since you clearly know which God Mariano is advocationg your trapped and are confined to confusing the issue. Each one of those religions is based on the Judeo-Christian God and thus they all believe in the same God. What you are apparently unaware of is that each of these sects of Christianity was set about in different ways. Look up any sects history and you see that they all split on a basis of tradition or arguments over how to specifcally worship not on which God they believe in. I am honestly quite surprised you made this mistake.

    Secondly your point about how there being a God makes no difference as horrible things happen anyway completely glosses over many issues in theology. The biggest I could name for you is free will. Free will is what God set about in order to create a race of beings that were not simply robots who loved him but creatures who had the choice to. Which is what unfortunately brought about original sin. I'm sure you know that story so I don't think it needs to be explained. The point is God gave us the right to choose between good and evil and we know the difference.

    On the contrary to your statement about how God does nothing to change human behavior I could point to a host of examples such as ex-drug addicts, alchoholics, criminal, saints like Mother Teresea and a sense of altruism that comes from these people all brought about by a love of God and a relationship with Him.

    Though just to clarify that doesn't make them free of sin. The Bible freely acknowlegdes that which is why God sent Jesus as a redeemer in the first place.

    Moving on you quote Mariano thusly:
    "In a god-free universe, since all that matters is survival, I may choose to survive by feeding the poor or by eating the poor. I may pursue benevolence or malevolence."

    Your response:
    "Wrong. Survival is furthered by certain activities but not by others. Feeding the poor furthers survival to a much greater degree than eating the poor. And "all that matters" is not survival. Survival is one thing, but we also seek a multitude of other things: happiness, pleasure, enjoyment, etc. And these things are furthered more (much more) by feeding the poor than by eating the poor."

    Im sure your aware of what an exaggeration is. That is exactly Mariano's use of the statement. You are right in acknowlegding that there are more issues but the exaggeration is still true. For instance on pleasure, some people find pleasure through making money and spending it. Some of the biggest evils today are caused by highrollers who go out of their way to make profit and thus will even crush people with brutal means just to make a few bucks. Some people are also getting enjoyment out of others pain a suffering. I don't mean sadism. I mean many of the commodities that Western societies enjoy come from the suffering of other people. For instance clothes bought at brand name stores are made by virtual slaves in sweatshops.

    You would ultimately argue that is wrong I'm assuming. That is a an example of enjoyment coming from anothers pain in its most basic form. Though I might add that sort of undercuts your point here about:

    "because WE are not indifferent."

    See how much attention and support you can garner about sweatshops on a regualar basis. Trust me you get alot of indifference.
    To finish, though your view on humanity is admirable humanity falls short of basic reasoning on so many levels its not even funny. To quote Mariano that:

    "but certainly does not amount to a moral imperative and 2) may end in temporal punishment or death via terrestrial judicious systems, assuming that enough bio-organism’s agree."

    signed "that anonymous troll" ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. secularist10January 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM

    Anonymous:
    Let me start by editing your first sentence: "Though your faith in [God] is nice. Its completely unrealistic."

    There, that's better. You see, we have the same result and the same moral conundrums no matter who is the highest being--God or us. The point is that God or gods does absolutely nothing, IN AND OF ITSELF, to change human behavior in this world. All it does is give the downtrodden "hope" and "faith" that they'll have the last laugh. A nice dream, to be sure, but useless in real life (that is, this life--the only one we know for sure exists).

    Now, on free will which is, in your estimation, the "biggest" issue in theology (theology, remember, is meaningless to me unto itself because I am secular): you said "The point is God gave us the right to choose between good and evil and we know the difference."

    But this does not refute my point in the slightest. So, let's say God gave us free will. Terrific. Wonderful. How does that stop the murderer from murdering? The rapist from raping? The main position Mariano and others hold is that without God, life is a free-for-all because there are no ultimate rules. But my point is that that is true with or without God! Think about it. If there is a god, Hitler did what he did. If there is not... Hitler still did what he did. It makes no difference because there will always be criminals and bad people. So there is "free will," so there is this, so there is that. What does that have to do with anything?

    The superiority of secular reason over any theistic mindset is simple: with the former, we accept that we humans are the final arbiters of truth, and this forces us to take final, ultimate responsibility; but with God, we can just dump everything on the man upstairs... good, evil, explainable, unexplainable--it is God, not us, that makes the final reckoning, and so there is no logically binding reason for humans to mete out punishment or reward in this life.

    On drug addicts and such, you said they get better because of "...a love of God and a relationship with Him." Fine. But many addicts get better without "a relationship with him," but rather with a relationship with, say, a mentor. So the essential process here is not God, but must be something else... that is, something in this life and this world, rendering God or lack thereof, once again, irrelevant.

    Finally, regarding different sects: Yes, technically, you are right of course, they all basically believe in the same "God," but the same could be said of Muslims, Hindus and Taoists, for example--that, at the essential level, they believe in the same basic idea. Where does one draw the line?

    But getting back to Christianity, my point is this: insofar as these different sects worship God in different ways, believe that God wants them to do different things, they effectively believe in different Gods.

    You say they all accept the "Judeo-Christian God." But what about Mormons, who believe that God has a physical body? What about Gnostics? I'm sure you would say "they're not really Christians"... and that is EXACTLY my point.

    Take care

    ReplyDelete
  5. kh123January 4, 2010 at 11:09 PM

    "Feeding the poor furthers survival to a much greater degree than eating the poor."

    Not necessarily. When there are too many mouths to feed, and (* tear *) Mother Earth suffers so terribly from all of those wretched, wanton, consuming mouths... well, it's time to do the "right" (opportunistic) thing and trim back the population some. Mao would seem to agree.

    "Survival is one thing, but we also seek a multitude of other things: happiness, pleasure, enjoyment, etc. And these things are furthered more (much more) by feeding the poor than by eating the poor.""

    I'm sure Charles Manson, John Jamelske, and Jeffrey Dahmer would agree.

    Well, maybe not Dahmer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. kh123January 4, 2010 at 11:36 PM

    So the new tact seems to be: Blame God for the actions mankind freely inflicts upon himself, and then blame God for not constricting people like robots in straight-jackets. Hmm, nice - damned if He does and damned if He... Oh wait, we can't talk about "damnation" and all - that's religious talk.

    "If there is a god, Hitler did what he did. If there is not... Hitler still did what he did. It makes no difference because there will always be criminals and bad people."

    But you missed the best part! Under atheism, Hitler really didn't do anything objectively wrong or immoral! What a great out for the accused! Better than anything the Nuremberg or O.J. defense teams could've come up with. For after all, we may die tomorrow in this "one and only life" of ours, right? so why not eat, drink, and declare eugenic liquidation on several million undesirables? Because ultimately, if we arbitrate that we need to usher in a new phase of happiness and prosperity under the loving nihilistic embrace of macro evolution... Well then, what objectively real moral or ethical roadblock is there to our philanthropic plans?


    Besides this, there's the slight caveat that under atheism, none of it (the Holocaust, the Purges, or anything else in all of history) had any objective purpose or meaning. Mindless dust in the wind, right?... That wonderful nihilism would extend to people as well, including erudite atheist proselytizers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. secularist10January 5, 2010 at 3:35 AM

    kh123:

    You seem to be assuming that objective morality or a valuing of human life cannot arise from secular reason. It can, although secular people have not done an effective job demonstrating that in recent centuries, in my view.

    You make the fantastic claim "the new tact seems to be: Blame God for the actions mankind freely inflicts upon himself, and then blame God for not constricting people like robots in straight-jackets."

    But you are assuming God! I sure don't. Once again, what I've said ad nauseam here is that, whether there is a God or is not a God, human behavior is what it is. The presence or lack thereof of a God, in and of itself, does nothing to change human action, and therefore with or without a god we are on our own when it comes to morality. But instead of addressing that point, you change the subject.

    You talk about Charles Manson, Hitler, Mao, etc. Here's the problem: religion cannot help us with these people. Only reason and thought can. This is the basic problem for the religious; no matter how religious you want to be in your own mind, no matter how much you "pray," it isn't going to do anything to change human behavior (at least that's what history, common sense and science tell us... but who cares about those little details?)

    Many religious believe that the downtrodden will have the last laugh because they WANT to believe it. They want to believe that there is an almighty power that will right all wrongs at the end of time. Maybe there is. I don't know. What I do know is that there is no proof of it.

    Therefore, why don't we just assume that we are alone here, we are alone in wrestling with these moral issues as the highest beings in existence, and we have to take final responsibility for our own survival and wellbeing? Sounds pretty empowering for humans to me, but then again, why would someone who believes in a cosmic dictatorship want that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2010 at 1:51 PM

    "You talk about Charles Manson, Hitler, Mao, etc. Here's the problem: religion cannot help us with these people. Only reason and thought can. This is the basic problem for the religious; no matter how religious you want to be in your own mind, no matter how much you "pray," it isn't going to do anything to change human behavior (at least that's what history, common sense and science tell us... but who cares about those little details?)"

    Oh please. Hitler's Germany was run by science fanatics, Nazi scientists were amongst the most innovative of the period and Nazi technology was sometimes decades ahead of its time. Nazi race theory was justified by Nazi science and the ensuing policies were reasoned from this scientific basis. It made sense to them! And if they had won it would make sense to us too! Great.

    Reason is subjective, that's why everyone believes themselves to possess more reason than everyone else. It's a lack of conscience that enables people to commit evil - plus a steadfast faith in their own sense of reason.

    ReplyDelete
  9. secularist10January 5, 2010 at 5:43 PM

    Anonymous:

    Now we are getting beyond morality, to much more fundamental issues of reality. Perhaps it would help you to understand how I and others like me think if you replace your idea of "god" with reason. Then you can see that reason, properly defined, is an objective thing, not subjective.

    Religious people claim to know what God wants and thinks, as if it is a matter of objective truth. Regardless of whether this is correct or not, the point is that they believe that God is an objective thing, not dependent on any individual's beliefs or preferences.

    Note that individual humans can "believe" that god wants them to kill, wants them to rape, to destroy, etc, but "the reality," they would say "is that God does not want these things."

    Now hopefully you can see that we believe that there is such a thing as objective knowledge, and the only way to reach it is through reason and thought.

    Now, of course the Nazis had plenty of science. However, this "science," if subjected to the vicissitudes of true objective reason and critical inquiry--as all proper science is--would have, in the stretch of time, given humans' ability to critically evaluate its claims, been debunked.

    For example, science has verifiably determined that there is no effective basis of identifying pure human "races," although Nazi and non-Nazi scientists of previous centuries believed that there was objective proof to that effect. Similar things could be said of spontaneous generation and other falsities that were nonetheless accepted for a long time by informed people.

    This I have found to be an unfortunate tendency among many religious (not saying you believe this)--to believe that science, reason, logic, the scientific method are all just a big game, and everything just comes down to what the individuals practicing those things WANT to believe. In the short term this may be true, but over time, given the nature of these disciplines, it is inevitable that falesehoods are thrown out. And history, as I mentioned, demonstrates this countless times.

    The same cannot be said of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousJanuary 6, 2010 at 1:44 AM

    "Now, of course the Nazis had plenty of science. However, this "science," if subjected to the vicissitudes of true objective reason and critical inquiry--as all proper science is--would have, in the stretch of time, given humans' ability to critically evaluate its claims, been debunked."

    That's nonsense. The scientific method of Nazi human experiments was the same as the scientific method of any modern school of science. Japan's Unit 731 also stayed true to the scientific method. You seem be sneaking a moral value judgement into a process that is amoral. The scientific method is the scientfic method, whether it's moral or not can't yet be determined by science, or reason because, again, the Nazis reasoned that they were doing the right thing.

    The point is that Nazi racial scientific truths were similar to those generally accepted throughout the scientific world at the time, and although I'm glad that modern science generally disowns Nazi race science, it doesn't change the objective fact that a scientific "truth" arrived at using the scientific method was used to justify murder.

    I think you are mistaken when you assert that the "religious....believe that science, reason, logic, the scientific method are all just a big game, and everything just comes down to what the individuals practicing those things WANT to believe.". The problem with scientific truths is that they are subject to change. Unfortunately, by the time someone gets around to debunking pseudo-science (pseudo-science in hindsight, that is!) several million people may have died or suffered because of it. As you know, in science, the "short term" can last a long time. Praise science and reason! It's wise to be skeptical of scientific "truths" and that may be the approach of religious people, but skepticism is a positive thing.

    You don't even have to go to the extreme of the Nazis to show this. Thalidomide, estrogen treatments, lobotomies, electric shock therapy, are all examples of scientific endeavours that have caused immense suffering only for the "truth" of their benefits to be later challenged. That's why science informed reason can be as big a cause of suffering as an Allah informed jihad.

    Finally, how do the champions of reason determine their own objectivity and impartiality? I've yet to meet the person that is devoid of emotional or psychological attachments to things that interest them. It's common sense to assume that scientists would have a personal stake in pushing their own agenda, because that's the human thing to do. I find it hard to believe in the Supreme Mystical Powers of Objectivity of anybody.

    ReplyDelete
  11. secularist10January 6, 2010 at 4:59 AM

    Anonymous:

    You said "The scientific method of Nazi human experiments was the same as the scientific method of any modern school of science." Yes, of course it was. I said that eventually science would have debunked their scientifically-derived claims--and it has. It has absolutely nothing to do with my moral feelings, because this is a fact outside of me.

    "...it doesn't change the objective fact that a scientific 'truth' arrived at using the scientific method was used to justify murder." Yes, this is true. Science was used to justify murder. And the same can be said of religion. So we're back to where we started.

    Except, we're not really back to where we started. Here, my dear friend, we see the crucial difference between science (or any reason-based process) and religion; between "science-informed reason" and "Allah-informed jihad": they both can be wrong, but only science can correct itself.

    That is a terribly profound difference. You say that "The problem with scientific truths is that they are subject to change." But this is not a problem--this is an advantage! While science has changed and developed and improved a thousand times over in the last 500 years, religion has been entertaining and considering the same old ideas century after century. That's because there is no objective way to verify anything that a religion claims.

    You say "Unfortunately, by the time someone gets around to debunking pseudo-science several million people may have died or suffered because of it."

    You are confusing things. You forgot what I said earlier--that objective truth is objective (the same way you think of "god"), and so it doesn’t matter if someone “thinks” that science justifies murder (just like you would say it doesn’t matter if someone thinks God justifies murder)-—it doesn’t. It is clear that the Nazis had an ideological and philosophical agenda long before they started hiring scientists...do you think that might have influenced the results?

    Furthermore, at least in science, debunking is possible! Indeed, it is a feature of science. By contrast, religion can never categorically debunk anything because it all derives from ideas and processes for which there is no evidence, and that's why religion has and will continue to kill.

    "As you know, in science, the 'short term' can last a long time." Yes, but in religion, the short term is infinite!

    "It's wise to be skeptical of scientific 'truths' and that may be the approach of religious people, but skepticism is a positive thing." I could not agree more that skepticism is a positive thing. And skepticism is an inherent feature of science, not religion.

    The reason certain religious people and "apologetics" are "skeptical" of scientific ideas (like evolution) is that they disagree based on their pre-existing assumptions. They are not skeptical for the sake of knowledge in and of itself, like science is. Science is fundamentally based on skepticism, whereas religion is fundamentally based on faith.

    “I find it hard to believe in the Supreme Mystical Powers of Objectivity of anybody.” Then why do you rely on your religious leaders to tell you what god wants? We don’t trust in the person to be objective; we trust in the process to give us objective knowledge. Remember that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousJanuary 6, 2010 at 2:29 PM

    Secularist10

    Sorry for my tardy reply. I'm "that anonymous troll" who signs his posts btw. Work and a local storm I've been slightly hampered. Now on with the show.

    First off I'd like to say you have a commendable ability in these debates seeing as you are going against another anonymous reader and kh123. I'm glad to meet someone whose determined!

    First off about God not changing anything. Well I have the penchant to disagree with you for two reasons. 1 Is that human behavior does significantly change when many people are in a relationship with God. I've seen people completely turn their lives around. Its very nice. 2 is that I've been privy to a miracle. Understandably you simply have to take my word on that so I don't blame you if you don't take that into account. If you wish for a description of said event please feel free to ask.

    As to changing human behavior. Well I'll take it to the extreme and point out Mother Teresea again. Before she became a nun and founded her own order she was pretty cutthroat in her survival. As you are most likely aware extreme poverty leads to extreme situations. However, when she became a nun she became completely altruistic. She died leaving nothing behind but a wash basin and some clothes. I'd say thats a fairly bug turn around. To use an example of someone I know however, he was a petty crook who had a long history of stealing and at one point robbery. He got caught. He only did community service hours though. However, he did come into contact with a pastor. to make it short he became a "born again" Christian and set about reworking his life. Even found the guy he robbed and reimbursed him. Take that as you will as the whole account might not mean anything to you at all. Its simply two stories I can give.

    Now as in saying that Hitler did what he did yeah he did it. Yeah my friend robbed a guy. Thats free choices humans make. Now in all religions regardless God (or gods as the case may be) seek to try and modify our behavior but fully warn humans that there are consequences to their actions that they might face. The same goes with all human laws of course.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousJanuary 6, 2010 at 2:41 PM

    One last note on the sects.

    Gnostics - well they don't believe in the same God lain out in the Bible. Also they claim to have a monopoly on some secret knowledge. The sure signs of a cult. They don't differ over worship as much as the whole context of what God is.

    Mormons - They believe that the entire Bible is wrong and that a farmer recieved a message from Gabriel. The Bible itself warns against such things:

    "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8)

    That would be the Biblical standard for rejecting both. Though seeing as theology means nothing to you I suppose you'll have to discern this another way.

    Thats all I can really say on that.

    Until next time! Looking forward to it too!

    "that anonymous troll" ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. secularist10January 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM

    Anonymous Troll:

    All this time I thought I was talking to the same guy!

    Well, thank you indeed for the compliment. I generally try to stick to the facts and the main points in an argument, I'm not big on hurling insults and attacks. But of course, that's because I know that I'm right (most of the time).

    Now, the stories you tell are very wonderful. If someone who is messed up on drugs and crime can get their life together and become a decent person, that's great for them, regardless of whatever the cause of it is.

    But what you are describing is interesting: imagine there is no god; imagine that god is simply an idea in these people's heads... does that change the basic story? You see, it does not. Again, there may be a god, or may not, but note that whether there is or is not a god, the Mother Theresa story or the reformed addict story can happen just the same. It would happen just the same if god was just an idea in their head.

    So the existence in and of itself of a god is irrelevant. What is relevant is that these people believe in something, feel something, have an idea of something, etc. (Indeed, there are as many if not more stories of such people turning around their lives based on human relationships, secular phenomena, etc)

    The point that Mariano and others make is that if there is no god, then we are thrown into a moral chaos. I say once again that if there is a god, or is not, makes no difference.

    At least if we understand that in this world and this life, IT IS UP TO US to right wrongs and to reward and to punish, then we can get to work building societies, protecting the innocent, and progressing.

    On Gnostics and Mormons--I rest my case. I do think that there are significant differences among religions, of course. But at the essential level, they are all manifestations of the same kinds of human impulses. And the original point about different "Gods" in different sects stands.

    On my blog I deal with these kinds of issues if you are interested.

    http://www.100treatises.wordpress.com

    Take care

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousJanuary 7, 2010 at 1:29 AM

    "We don’t trust in the person to be objective; we trust in the process to give us objective knowledge."

    Well yes. The process can, has, and might in the future involve human subjects, as with Nazi scientists and the Japanese scientists of Unit 731, of course American scientists have also used humans for experimentation. These guys were doing proper science because they applied the scientific method and obtained objective knowledge, even worse, they reasoned that the scientific method itself justified using humans as subjects and race science of the time was considered objective knowledge only to be somewhat de-bunked much, much too late. Plus, who has debunked the objective knowledge gained from Nazi/Japanese human experiments?

    But the point stands that scientific truths have, and will probably continue to cause much personal and societal suffering - you agree with this. The fact that science might correct itself is irrelevant. Given that scientific truths can an do have negative social repercussions and cause immense suffering, it seems irrational (maybe even immoral)to claim science as a basis for reason, especially when it comes to situations where scientific truths and social policies intersect.

    For instance, it may well be discovered that 2 week old human embryos have memory and emotions and suffer greatly during abortions. Well, great, science corrected itself, yet science would be seen to have been instrumental in shaping attitudes of indifference towards abortion, and another "truth" would be shown to have caused immense suffering. It's almost like asking a five-year old to advise you on major life decisions.

    "It is clear that the Nazis had an ideological and philosophical agenda long before they started hiring scientists...do you think that might have influenced the results?"

    This is nonsense. "Nazi Race Science" is actually a misnomer because the science that informed Nazi race policy was well established by science well before Nazism ever existed. Nazi scientists simply adopted these scientfic truths that were considered objective knowledge.

    "....they both can be wrong, but only science can correct itself."

    "Correction" is incorrect. "Latest Update - will change, so don't make any major life decisions" is more appropriate and more honest.

    It's clear that the scientific method can itself be applied humanely or not, and can yield objective information that can cause normally rational people to reason that science justifies suffering based on temporary and potentially pseudo-scientific "truths" that may or may not be de-bunked at some unspecified point in the future. The method itself must be subserviant to moral considerations, which cannot be provided by the process.

    "All this time I thought I was talking to the same guy!"

    Okay, that explains it. I thought you were trying to put words in my mouth!

    Different Anon Troll

    ReplyDelete
  16. secularist10January 7, 2010 at 6:24 AM

    Anonymous 2:

    First, you completely ignore what I've said about religion, focusing instead on science.

    "The fact that science might correct itself is irrelevant." Wrong again. It is very relevant, because since scientific claims can be flawed, the only alternative to science that anyone can propose is some kind of religion. Well, let's look at the track record of religious claims: wrong on the origin of the earth, wrong on the origin of life, wrong on the origin of human life, wrong on countless historical events, wrong, wrong, wrong...

    You see, people once believed that the world is flat--and they had science of the time to back them up. Hundreds of years later, we know the earth is round. How did we come to this conclusion? Application of the scientific method, evidence, etc. If we had been using religion and theology to answer the question of the shape of the world, though, we STILL wouldn't have a solid answer, hundreds of years later, because religion is inherently incapable of systematically providing objective knowledge. So science succeeds and religion fails.

    You said "Given that scientific truths can an do have negative social repercussions and cause immense suffering, it seems irrational (maybe even immoral)to claim science as a basis for reason." This is wrong, but what's your alternative? Religion? Religion utterly fails time and again in establishing objective truth. Scientists may be flawed people, but their methodology for achieving knowledge is probably one of the most important things ever created by humans.

    You keep bringing up the argument that "science/ scientists cause death and suffering." There are two responses: (1) so does religion/ religious people, and yet religion has done nowhere near the good for the human mind as science (so science wins on that count alone), (2) relative to the vast amount of good that science has done, the negative outcomes are negligible.

    I'm sure you'll say "it's not negligible to the survivors of the holocaust you heartless prick!" But that has nothing to do with science in and of itself! Furthermore, I don't hear you bashing religion because of the millions it and its purveyors have killed.

    "The method itself must be subserviant to moral considerations, which cannot be provided by the process." More precisely, the APPLICATION of the method must be constrained in that way, but yes, that's right. And science, in fact, does give us the stuff to make moral claims.

    So what you are really referring to is the immoral character of the Nazis. So then, once again, we are back to morality, and my original point: the only way to determine what is and is not moral is through reason, sometimes including... dare I say... science.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousJanuary 7, 2010 at 1:36 PM

    Secular,

    You seem to engaging in special pleading as the basis for your contentions.

    Okay let's say that religion has been...."wrong on the origin of the earth, wrong on the origin of life, wrong on the origin of human life, wrong on countless historical events, wrong, wrong, wrong..." and that people believed that the earth was flat. How much suffering was caused by these beliefs? By comparison let's list some of the objective knowledge from science's former truths.....race science, Lysenkoism, lobotomies, thalidomide treatments, human experimentation, Soviet scientific materialism, and radioactive "treatment" gadgets and potions. Clearly, the reasoning informed by this objective knowledge caused huge amounts of suffering.

    It's ridiculous to say that science has not been a force for progress and I've never said that it isn't, so forget the idea that I'm bashing anything.

    "So what you are really referring to is the immoral character of the Nazis. So then, once again, we are back to morality, and my original point: the only way to determine what is and is not moral is through reason, sometimes including... dare I say... science."

    Well that's not really the sum total of what I'm saying, and you seem to be avoiding the fact that the Nazis well and truly reasoned from their scientifically gleaned objective knowledge about race that they were doing the moral thing by exterminating undesirables. There's no doubt about this.

    Because scientific truths are subject to updates, reasoning that results from it (usually without caveats) are nothing more than faith claims that may or may not cause others to suffer. That's why to do so is irrational. Given that history shows that scientific truths can fail so horrifically it's evidently a poor basis upon which to claim reason.

    ReplyDelete
  18. secularist10January 7, 2010 at 7:43 PM

    Anonymous 2:
    "How much suffering was caused by these beliefs?" You're dodging the point. Given the context of what I was saying there, I said that "religion was wrong, wrong..." as supporting evidence to undermine religion's claim on knowledge.

    Religion has been wrong on so much, so why assume that it will suddenly provide some special insight into another class of questions (in this case, morality)? Rather, the default position (on an inductive basis) should be heavy skepticism toward religious claims, given the track record.

    You agree that "science has been a force for progress"--good, so you agree that this indicates that the process underlying it (secular reason) can provide a legitimate basis for moral thinking.

    "...you seem to be avoiding the fact that the Nazis well and truly reasoned from their scientifically gleaned objective knowledge about race that they were doing the moral thing." I'm not avoiding that at all! I keep saying that (1) just because someone THINKS some scientific finding justifies this or that, doesn't mean that it does (you would say the same applies to religious doctrine), (2) of course there is bad science, there always has been--but because science has a built-in self-improvement mechanism, it can grow and advance, whereas religion (which has no such self-improvement mechanism) cannot.

    Therefore, I say once again, secular reason is inherently far more reliable when it comes to uncovering truth than religion. And this includes moral truth. Doesn't mean we always get it right. But we can correct ourselves, religion can't.

    So my argument has both inductive (religion's and science's track records) and deductive (inherent nature of religion and of science) components.

    ReplyDelete
  19. kh123January 8, 2010 at 12:45 PM

    "Now, of course the Nazis had plenty of science. However, this "science," if subjected to the vicissitudes of true objective reason and critical inquiry--as all proper science is--would have, in the stretch of time, given humans' ability to critically evaluate its claims, been debunked."

    Exactly!

    ...Did I mention that Darwinism was their favorite "science" and national biopolicy?

    Can't wait til your prediction comes true for the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. secularist10January 8, 2010 at 5:35 PM

    kh123:

    I suggest you educate yourself on the modern theory of evolution and how far it has come since Darwin's time, and since the early 20th century.

    Other than that, as I have said ad nauseam here (repeated here for the millionth time), because someone uses a given ideology or historical figure or scientific finding to "justify" this or that, it does not follow that that ideology or historical figure or scientific finding DOES in fact justify it.

    In your terms, replace "Hitler" and "Darwin" with "Torquemada" and "Jesus" respectively, and see what you get.

    ReplyDelete
  21. kh123January 10, 2010 at 1:34 PM

    Oh, looks like someone forgot their Darwin Catechism again!:

    "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla."

    I think Hitler missed the portion which stated that you needed to exterminate these lesser evolved "races" with germs and steel as opposed to Giftgas...

    Oh, and Darwin's obviously logical and scientific approach to those untermensh that just don't have the genetic muster to avoid cleft palettes and other medical infirmities:


    "...the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed... Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature... if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

    Again, I think Hitler missed the cue to use blunt force trauma to relieve the sick of their obvious inferiorities as opposed to ovens.


    As far as those strides in evolutionary biology: I know! Just look at how they're still eyeballing morphology to come up with phylogenies, even after they've unlocked the ability to look at the intricate (and seemingly designed) machinery that makes life possible (DNA).

    And still!, they resort to "If it looks the same, then it's due to unseen evolutionary forces..." etc. Sort of like how Darwin looked at African or Australian tribes and thought that they looked (and therefore were in his mind) slightly evolved apes. Which would inevitably be exterminated, of course. By Caucasian supermen...

    And look, I even educated myself on how evolutionary proposals are obviously falsifiable and therefore absolutely scientific. Such as when living things look alike inconveniently, but the phylogenist doesn't necessarily desire this... and so these similarties have to be written off as "convergence".

    Or when we want those phylogenies to come out even, we'll overemphasize the similarities and ignore the glaringly obvious differences/gaps. Hence, walking whales and African ape men.

    Oh, evolutionary science! - will you ever cease to amaze with your appeal to the superficial? (Like it's bedfellow: Propaganda...)


    Personally though, I don't see what Tortillas have to do with the Jewish Messiah.

    ReplyDelete
  22. secularist10January 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM

    kh123
    Unsurprisingly, you have failed to address my main points.

    And I see we're still playing the same old creationist game: Ignore the overwhelming mountains of evidence for evolution from a variety of disciplines, and focus instead on a few (legitimate) issues that have yet to be reconciled with the larger theory, out of all proportion to their significance.

    If only the religious would apply the same myopic hair-splitting criticism to their own assumptions! But then, they wouldn't be religious for very long, would they?

    "Personally though, I don't see what Tortillas have to do with the Jewish Messiah."

    Haha. Too funny. I guess you've never heard of the Spanish Inquisition. Shame. A person can learn a lot from history.

    ReplyDelete
  23. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM

    Secularist,

    "You're dodging the point. Given the context of what I was saying there, I said that "religion was wrong, wrong..." as supporting evidence to undermine religion's claim on knowledge."

    You're burying your head in the sand. The list I provided undermines science's claim on truth.

    "...good, so you agree that this indicates that the process underlying it (secular reason) can provide a legitimate basis for moral thinking."

    Illogical. "Objective knowledge" derived from scientific enquiry are subject to updates making them not truths at all but the "latest opinion". As you know, the Nazis reasoned murder and war from generally accepted "objective knowledge". How can this process lead to a legitimate basis for moral thinking? The premise isn't solid by definition.

    "(1) just because someone THINKS some scientific finding justifies this or that, doesn't mean that it does..."

    Well I agree, but the truth needs little justification. In my previous post I listed several instances where scientific "truths" led to death and suffering. Isn't it therefore immoral for scientism to hold up science's findings as "truths" knowing from history that notions of scientific "truth" can lead to suffering?

    "2) of course there is bad science, there always has been...."

    Well, all scientific findings supercede previous ones, so in a way all discarded science is "bad", yet at the time what is later discarded is considered truth. So in another way there really can't be any bad science, only what's presently understood.

    ReplyDelete
  24. secularist10January 12, 2010 at 7:14 PM

    Anonymous 2:
    Not burying my head in the sand. I already dealt with your attack on "science's claim on truth" by saying (quoting myself):"relative to the vast amount of good that science has done, the negative outcomes are negligible."

    If, as you say, science has no claim on truth, how is it that it has been so smashingly successful, ON BALANCE, for over 500 years? You yourself said that science has "been a force for progress"--how can it have been a force for progress if it has no claim on the truth? I'm confused.

    No matter how many bad examples you can cite, it will never remotely equal the positive that science has done.

    No one is saying that the outcome of a particular experiment is "The Truth." Just that it brings us closer to the truth, and the underlying process guarantees that eventually the truth is discovered. It works for moral questions, too.

    "Isn't it therefore immoral for scientism to hold up science's findings as 'truths' knowing from history that notions of scientific 'truth' can lead to suffering?"

    Your statement can be tweaked like this:

    "Isn't it therefore immoral for [religion] to hold up [religious doctrine] as 'truths' knowing from history that notions of [religious] 'truth' can lead to suffering?"

    See the problem?

    Like science or not, but it's the best we've got. And no one said it's perfect.

    And no one will disagree that experiments should be conducted morally.

    ReplyDelete
  25. AnonymousJanuary 13, 2010 at 1:10 AM

    Secularist,

    "already dealt with your attack on "science's claim on truth"

    Attack!!? I'm questioning the rationality of basing reasoning, that has the potential to negatively affect millions of people on temporary truths (that are likely to turn out to be wrong). Special pleading aside, you haven't offered a meaningful response.

    Again, you fail to present any kind of logical argument. ....

    "relative to the vast amount of good that science has done, the negative outcomes are negligible"

    This is poor logic and even worse reasoning. You simply cannot know if in the long-run science's contribution to human existence will have offered more good than bad. Furthermore, war, disease, natural catastrophes, and, yes even religion could be shown to have more positive effects than negative. Your point is unconvincing.

    You still fail to see that you actually advocate for a faith-based process (particularly when it comes to morality) that is no different than that used by the religious.

    ReplyDelete
  26. secularist10January 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM

    Anonymous 2:
    You said "The list I provided undermines science's claim on truth." Call me crazy, but sounds like you're attacking science, given that science makes a claim to seek and uncover the truth. But you keep shifting the terms of your argument, and dodging many of my points.

    "You simply cannot know if in the long-run science's contribution to human existence will have offered more good than bad." No, but the past and present are a good indication. Note also that what you said can be applied to religion as well, leaving you with absolutely no legitimate system for knowledge. That leaves you in a pickle (especially since you are using things (computer, internet) that are made possible by the scientific process).

    It sounds like you're tending toward the problem of induction-type argument. Which is a meaningless argument because all human knowledge is, at some level, inductive (including the knowledge used in the "problem of induction" argument--very inconvenient).

    "You still fail to see that you actually advocate for a faith-based process (particularly when it comes to morality) that is no different than that used by the religious."

    Yes, there is an element of faith in science and secular reason. But the faith is backed up by evidence (except for the very fist assumptions (like assuming that reality exists)), whereas in religion the evidence is scanty if it's there at all. Therefore secular reason is superior and more reliable. (I've said this ad nauseam and you continue to fail to address it.)

    You argue against science over and over, yet I've asked you several times to give an effective alternative. You have not. That's because there is none.

    You keep saying scientific findings are subject to updates, therefore we should not be confident in them at all, not make binding decisions based on them at all. Well, modern western civilization disagrees with you, and it's turned out pretty well.

    Maybe some day the theory of infectious disease will turn out to have been wrong. By your so-called "logic" I guess that means we should stop wasting money on hospitals. It MIGHT turn out to be true, right?

    Regarding the Nazis: they applied the scientific method in an immoral way. This says nothing about science (which is an amoral tool), and everything about Nazis. If they had used secular reason to figure out what was moral and what was not before doing those experiments, then they would have seen that to do so was wrong.

    Yes, I know this irritates you, but an amoral process can be used to find moral truths. Doesn't mean that a given moral idea is permanently correct, but in time, given the nature of the process, it leads to such truth (assuming people actually try to figure it out reasonably, rather than based on religious faith--which leads to moral relativism).

    Again, our 2 general options for knowledge (tangible or intangible knowledge, moral knowledge, physical knowledge--ALL KNOWLEDGE) are science and religion, broadly defined. Science is characterized by skepticism toward a claim and objective evidence. Religion is characterized by acceptance of a claim and subjective experience. Science (1) makes mistakes and (2) on balance expands the human mind. Religion (1) makes mistakes and (2) on balance does little to expand the human mind (or even closes it).

    If you think the scientific process is inadequate, and you still think knowledge is possible, you must provide an alternative. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  27. AnonymousJanuary 14, 2010 at 2:03 AM

    Secularist,

    "Call me crazy, but sounds like you're attacking science, given that science makes a claim to seek and uncover the truth. But you keep shifting the terms of your argument, and dodging many of my points."

    Well, you're crazy. Pointing out the irrational nature of the scientism position is hardly an attack! It definitely doesn't argue against science. If you re-read my posts you'll find that I haven't shifted the terms of any of my contentions nor dodged your points. You are wrong on that.

    "No, but the past and present are a good indication."

    I keep hearing that but you haven't shown how that's the case. If fact, your references to history have been wildly inaccurate.

    "Therefore secular reason is superior and more reliable. (I've said this ad nauseam and you continue to fail to address it.)"

    Well, all of my post have addressed this contention so I'm stunned by your statement. Basing, reason on changeable premises (particularly in the area of morality) is like building a house with no foundation. This is common sense. Again, the Nazis reasoned from generally accepted race science of the time - this is the clearest example of my point, though not the only one.

    "You keep saying scientific findings are subject to updates, therefore we should not be confident in them at all, not make binding decisions based on them at all. Well, modern western civilization disagrees with you, and it's turned out pretty well."

    That's pompous. Western civilization has a poor memory. I've already listed just a few of the results of binding decisions made from scientific findings that have led to horrific suffering. So, no I doubt very much that modern western civilization would disgaree with me.

    "Maybe some day the theory of infectious disease will turn out to have been wrong. By your so-called "logic" I guess that means we should stop wasting money on hospitals."

    Hospitals existed long before germ theory and were developed to enact the ethic of caring for others - an endeavour that would be considered an objective truth not derived from science or germ theory nor a result of secular reasoning. Yet given secular reasoning, it might well be considered resasonable to not waste money on hospitals if germ theory is wrong. So, your analogy doesn't make sense.

    "Regarding the Nazis: they applied the scientific method in an immoral way. This says nothing about science (which is an amoral tool), and everything about Nazis. If they had used secular reason to figure out what was moral and what was not before doing those experiments, then they would have seen that to do so was wrong."

    I haven't attacked science, and the Nazi scientists were secular and they did use secular reasoning. They reasoned from accepted scientific knowledge. Nazi society was scientifc, modern, technologically advanced, educated and secular. This is another example of a lack of historical knowledge.

    "Religion is characterized by acceptance of a claim and subjective experience. Science (1) makes mistakes and (2) on balance expands the human mind. Religion (1) makes mistakes and (2) on balance does little to expand the human mind (or even closes it)."

    These aren't scientific truths, but they are acceptance of claims and subjective experience.

    "If you think the scientific process is inadequate, and you still think knowledge is possible, you must provide an alternative."

    You've lost me here. I haven't said the scientific process is inadequate.

    ReplyDelete
  28. secularist10January 14, 2010 at 11:01 AM

    Anonymous2:
    “Pointing out the irrational nature of the scientism position is hardly an attack! It definitely doesn't argue against science.”
    I do believe you’ve created a straw man, sir. I have not argued in favor of scientism. When I say “science” I am using the term broadly, as when I said (quoting myself): “Again, our 2 general options for knowledge… are science and religion, BROADLY DEFINED” (emphasis added).

    I have used “science” and “secular reason” interchangeably to refer to the basic tool that all humans use to answer questions of all kinds, and thus to develop knowledge of all kinds. “Science” here does not mean physical science or the natural sciences, although these are good examples of it. But the basic methodology (observation, experimentation, evidence, testing hypotheses, updating theories, etc) is used in all areas of human life, just in different ways and using different media: political science, economics, philosophy, deciding which jug of milk to buy in the grocery store, etc. The point is that in all of these things we use our noggin, and think rationally. We make use of observation, question assumptions, etc. This I characterize as “secular reason” or “science, broadly defined.” It is secular because it does not assume anything beyond this world and this life exists.

    “I keep hearing that but you haven't shown how that's the case. If fact, your references to history have been wildly inaccurate.” Past trials that have occurred many times should give a good indication of the truth. I would have thought that was obvious. It’s one major way the human brain works, in any case (maybe you have access to a special alien brain that has a better technique; if so, I’d love to see it). My references to history have been “wildly inaccurate”? How so? Absolutely nothing that I’ve said about history has been inaccurate. So that’s baseless.

    “Basing, reason on changeable premises (particularly in the area of morality) is like building a house with no foundation.”

    Ok, here’s a problem: it’s not a “changeable premises” as such. To take the analogy of a house, the house is answers to questions. The foundation is all human understanding to this point. Note that the whole foundation is incomplete at any given moment, still being built, because we keep discovering new things. But it’s there. We can build on what foundation there is. And as the foundation expands, more of the house can be built. But note that the foundation is not made of jello. What foundation there is, is strong and is in place. It does not change. Think, for example, of the law of gravity. Rock solid, upon which new answers can be built.

    ReplyDelete
  29. secularist10January 14, 2010 at 11:02 AM

    (continued)
    “Yet given secular reasoning, it might well be considered resasonable to not waste money on hospitals if germ theory is wrong. So, your analogy doesn't make sense.” But that wasn’t the question! I didn’t ask “if germ theory is wrong, should we stop hospitals.” I was following your thinking, asking “if germ theory MIGHT be wrong, should we stop hospitals.” You say all knowledge is temporary, therefore we don’t know if anything is true. Therefore we shouldn’t make any decisions based on current knowledge because current knowledge might be wrong. Going by this logic, germ theory (which is current knowledge) MIGHT be wrong. We think it’s true now, but it might be wrong. So, according to your assertion, we should not make binding decisions based on it. That, to me, doesn’t make sense. We should do the best we can with the best knowledge we have now. Not throw up our hands and say “every damn thing we believe now might be totally wrong!”

    “Nazi society was scientifc, modern, technologically advanced, educated and secular. This is another example of a lack of historical knowledge.”

    No, I know Nazism was a secular political ideology. (My knowledge of history is very good, thank you very much.) Just because they were secular doesn’t mean they used secular reason to the proper/ full extent. I think the problem here is that you seem to think that secular ideas are secular ideas—it’s all equally legitimate. So, on a secular basis, we have no way of determining if capitalism is better than communism, for example. This is an extremely dubious position, and ignores much of philosophy, economics and other fields that are secular in nature, but have spawned clear answers on various questions.

    “You've lost me here. I haven't said the scientific process is inadequate.”

    Well, then you must be another Anonymous. Either you believe the scientific process (again, broadly defined) is adequate for answering questions, or you don’t. If you believe it is, then it follows that it can provide insight into moral questions. If you don’t, then you need to provide an alternative. It’s either one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AnonymousJanuary 16, 2010 at 4:02 PM

    Secularist,

    "When I say “science” I am using the term broadly...........I have used “science” and “secular reason” interchangeably to refer to the basic tool that all humans use to answer questions of all kinds"

    Huh!!? That's more commonly known as moving the goal posts. Re-read your previous posts and it should be clear to any reasonable person that your references to science have been anything but general or broad. Science and "secular reason" aren't necessarily interchangeable, unless one practices scientism. You're being either dishonest or you are simply confused.

    "Past trials that have occurred many times should give a good indication of the truth. I would have thought that was obvious."

    This doesn't even make sense. An argument from the "obvious" is not an argument. And, yes, your historical references have been wildly inaccurate.

    "To take the analogy of a house, the house is answers to questions. The foundation is all human understanding to this point. Note that the whole foundation is incomplete at any given moment, still being built, because we keep discovering new things."

    But is it safe to live in a half-built house? If the answers that comprise the first floor are found to be incorrect, then the person asleep on the floor above will have a painful awakening. This is also poor logic. If the foundation is all understanding to this point, then any new answers that give us understanding must by definition become a part of the foundation. The foundation grows, but the house cannot be built.

    "I didn’t ask “if germ theory is wrong, should we stop hospitals.” I was following your thinking, asking “if germ theory MIGHT be wrong, should we stop hospitals.” You say all knowledge is temporary, therefore we don’t know if anything is true. Therefore we shouldn’t make any decisions based on current knowledge because current knowledge might be wrong. Going by this logic, germ theory (which is current knowledge) MIGHT be wrong. We think it’s true now, but it might be wrong. So, according to your assertion, we should not make binding decisions based on it."

    Well, no, your analogy doesn't make sense. Hospitals were around long before there was a germ theory, so their existence is not dependant on germ theory being right or wrong, because their purpose transcends all scentific theories. If there were no sickness then yes it would be a waste to pay for hospitals. The point is that you are mistakenly presuming that hospitals rely on scientific truth to validate their existence, when in fact the opposite is true. Without the ethic that we should care for others (which isn't a scientific truth), the drive to develope beneficial medicine probably wouldn't exist.

    Plus, where have I said that we shouldn't make decisions based on current knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  31. AnonymousJanuary 16, 2010 at 4:04 PM

    Secularist (cont.)....

    "No, I know Nazism was a secular political ideology........Just because they were secular doesn’t mean they used secular reason to the proper/ full extent. I think the problem here is that you seem to think that secular ideas are secular ideas—it’s all equally legitimate."

    This is more unconvincing special pleading, and the problem is not that I misunderstand "secular reason" but that you're unable to acknowledge that secular reason can and has led to genocide. Nazi scientists and Stalinist murderers did not invoke the supernatural in their reasoning process. They invoked scientific truths. They reasoned secularly.

    "Either you believe the scientific process (again, broadly defined) is adequate for answering questions, or you don’t. If you believe it is, then it follows that it can provide insight into moral questions. If you don’t, then you need to provide an alternative. It’s either one or the other."

    This is rubbish. You've already moved the goalposts so your statement is meaningless. Your characterization of science "broadly defined" is actually scientism "thinly disguised".

    You also seem to be confused. I've already shown how science and secular reason can provide insight into moral questions. You're the one that is denying it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. secularist10January 17, 2010 at 3:00 PM

    Anon 2:
    Wow. I barely know where to begin. It should be clear to the unbiased reader that you have been beat on the arguments, and at this point are grasping at anything to save face. I keep making new arguments, and you keep repeating the same points with different words burying your head in the sand (hey, didn’t you accuse me of that?). All I can do at this point is give a summary of what I have said and what you've said. One cannot reason with the unreasonable.

    1. SCIENCE AND SECULAR REASON BROADLY DEFINED:
    I mentioned the words "secular reason" before I mentioned the word "science," which should give an indication of the general thrust of my argument. I have said this:

    “Again, our 2 general options for knowledge (tangible or intangible knowledge, moral knowledge, physical knowledge--ALL KNOWLEDGE) are science and religion, broadly defined.” Note: BROADLY DEFINED.

    “You agree that ‘science has been a force for progress’--good, so you agree that this indicates that the process underlying it (secular reason) can provide a legitimate basis for moral thinking.” See, I’m talking about the PROCESS UNDERLYING IT.

    I could go on.

    2. YOU BASH SCIENCE AND SECULAR REASON:

    YOU HAVE SAID THINGS LIKE THIS:

    “Reason is subjective, that's why everyone believes themselves to possess more reason than everyone else.” (That’s clearly true in your case)

    “Praise science and reason! It's wise to be skeptical of scientific ‘truths’…” (I don’t disagree with this statement per se—no one would—but the fact that you say it indicates you are distrustful of science generally; your tone is sneering and obviously very critical of “science and reason”)

    “…scientific truths have, and will probably continue to cause much personal and societal suffering” (Really? You have a crystal ball, Mr. Logic?)

    “… I listed several instances where scientific ‘truths’ led to death and suffering. Isn't it therefore immoral for scientism to hold up science's findings as ‘truths’ knowing from history that notions of scientific ‘truth’ can lead to suffering?” (This is a non-sequitur, BTW)

    “The list I provided undermines science's claim on truth.”

    I could go on and on. Conclusion: you do not trust secular reason, and you do not trust science; you have taken a general tone of bashing science and, by extension, secular reason, which is what science (broadly or narrowly defined) is based on.

    (cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  33. secularist10January 17, 2010 at 3:03 PM

    cont'd:

    3. WE SHOULD NOT MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON CURRENT KNOWLEDGE (I.E. ‘TEMPORARY TRUTHS’):

    You have said this:
    “‘Correction’ is incorrect. ‘Latest Update - will change, so don't make any major life decisions’ is more appropriate and more honest.”

    “‘Objective knowledge’ derived from scientific enquiry are subject to updates making them not truths at all but the ‘latest opinion’.”

    “Because scientific truths are subject to updates, reasoning that results from it (usually without caveats) are nothing more than faith claims that may or may not cause others to suffer. That's why to do so is irrational. Given that history shows that scientific truths can fail so horrifically it's evidently a poor basis upon which to claim reason.”

    I could go on and on. Conclusion: you do not trust science and/or secular reason (broadly or narrowly defined, no matter), and you believe that decisions should not be made based on current knowledge that has been derived from secular reason or the scientific process. I’m only going by your words. If you believe something different, then maybe you should communicate it better.


    4. MORE SILLINESS:
    “And, yes, your historical references have been wildly inaccurate.”

    Another unsubstantiated criticism. Any supporting evidence? Any citations? Or is this just rhetoric?

    “You also seem to be confused. I've already shown how science and secular reason can provide insight into moral questions. You're the one that is denying it.”

    HAHA! This is the most fantastic and hilarious thing I have heard yet! I see 2 possibilities: (1) this is among the most shameless and transparent examples of illogical face-saving I have ever seen in my life (and from someone claiming the logical high ground!), (2) this whole discussion has been a practical joke, and you are really a died-in-the-wool atheist (in which case, you got me, brother! Good show! And you are one cruel S.O.B.!).

    Thanks for giving me a really good laugh, anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  34. AnonymousJanuary 18, 2010 at 2:14 AM

    Secularist,

    "Wow. I barely know where to begin. It should be clear to the unbiased reader that you have been beat on the arguments, and at this point are grasping at anything to save face."

    Yes, wow! You sound like a twelve-year-old. Are you serious!!!!

    "I keep making new arguments, and you keep repeating the same points with different words burying your head in the sand (hey, didn’t you accuse me of that?)."

    Well, not really. Your arguments have been simply repeated/reworded over several posts. You have argued with special pleading, which I have plainly addressed in my previous posts.

    "I could go on and on. Conclusion: you do not trust secular reason, and you do not trust science; you have taken a general tone of bashing science and, by extension, secular reason, which is what science (broadly or narrowly defined) is based on."

    Well I'm glad you added this paragraph because your point wasn't clear. Unfortunately it still doesn't make sense. I'm distrustful of your scientism which isn't the same as science. There is nothing in any of the statements that you quoted that are incorrect, and you certainly haven't shown how they are untrue.

    “You agree that ‘science has been a force for progress’--good, so you agree that this indicates that the process underlying it (secular reason) can provide a legitimate basis for moral thinking.”

    What on earth are you talking about? Science has been a force for progress, that does not mean that it can provide a legitimate basis for moral thinking. You are simply misunderstanding what I've said and exhibiting an inability to reason logically.

    "WE SHOULD NOT MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON CURRENT KNOWLEDGE............I could go on and on. Conclusion: you do not trust science and/or secular reason (broadly or narrowly defined, no matter), and you believe that decisions should not be made based on current knowledge that has been derived from secular reason or the scientific process. I’m only going by your words. If you believe something different, then maybe you should communicate it better."

    This merely shows the limitations of your ability to utilize logic. Not all current knowledge is derived from science. You seem unable to grasp this idea. For instance, killing for pleasure is considered wrong, but this isn't a scientific truth. Again, it's your scientism that is being examined, not science.

    You have claimed that "secular reason" that is science informed, is what "can help us" with people like Mao, Hitler, et al. Your answer when informed that these people utilized science informed secular reason as the basis for their claim to authority, and the driving force behind their brutal actions, is to simply hand-wave and say"..but..but, that's not real secular reasoning". Which really supports the point in my first post that reason is subjective, particularly when derived from fleeting scientific theories.

    Again, it's nice to be quoted in your last two posts, but where have you shown that my statements are untrue? You haven't, you've simply hand-waved, and argued with special pleading.

    "(1) this is among the most shameless and transparent examples of illogical face-saving I have ever seen in my life (and from someone claiming the logical high ground!), (2) this whole discussion has been a practical joke, and you are really a died-in-the-wool atheist (in which case, you got me, brother! Good show! And you are one cruel S.O.B.!)....Thanks for giving me a really good laugh, anyway!
    "

    Well, number one is a blatant projection of your own actions, and I agree that number two would be funny! Plus, highlighting your logical blunders is not the same as me claiming the logical high-ground - in fact number one above is another example of a failure in logic.

    Thanks for the revealing conversation!

    ReplyDelete
  35. secularist10January 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM

    Wow, it sounds like I'm so incapable of logical thought...I guess I better check myself into a psychiatric clinic!

    Stick a fork in me. One cannot reason with the unreasonable. The unbiased reader will judge. And they will judge using reason.

    ReplyDelete
  36. AnonymousJanuary 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM

    Secularist,

    "Wow, it sounds like I'm so incapable of logical thought...I guess I better check myself into a psychiatric clinic!

    Stick a fork in me. One cannot reason with the unreasonable. The unbiased reader will judge. And they will judge using reason."

    Well okay then.

    ReplyDelete
  37. kh123January 25, 2010 at 4:39 AM

    "I guess you've never heard of the Spanish Inquisition. Shame. A person can learn a lot from history."

    Always seems to be that the inconsistencies of the Spanish Inquisition with the Bible never seem to bother honest-to-Marx atheists, while the consistencies of Russian/German atrocities with Darwinian doctrine never seems to interest them. Kind of like how Barney Frank gets all up in arms about fatcat bankers, but Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac auditing never seems to interest him.

    "And I see we're still playing the same old creationist game: Ignore the overwhelming mountains of evidence for evolution from a variety of disciplines,...

    Oh, wait... "mountains of evidence"... You mean looking at superficialities in the fossils (or kitchen ware) and pointing to similarity as being due to common ancestry? Magical lungfish and sporks! Oh, happy days, I should have known.

    But, of course, when those similarities are not wanted, they'll have to backpedal and say that the similarities were "overstated" and "apparently represent evolutionary convergence" (Gingerich on mesonychid/archaeocete tooth morphology. Just so that I may emphasize the point: Tooth morphology is the bread and butter for cladograms and determining relationships. So if this can be written off when inconvenient... how then can any proposal be falsified under an evolutionary paradigm? It can't, not without being arbitrarily overthrown. More akin to high school fads than science, seems.)

    Well, whenever those "mountains of evidence" can duplicate the process of turning a fish into a tetrapod (or lead into gold), let us all know, will you? Apparently, even Dawkins seems to think that the process can't be shown in real time by any reasonable means, as he admitted here.

    But then again, those evolutionary faithful! Retaining that golden-calf faith apparently by not engaging in "myopic hair-splitting and criticism" over their beliefs.

    Which is just another way of saying that they're not critically thinking over whether or not their paradigm/faith is fundamentally flawed. But hey, why be rude, right? Research grants don't assign themselves, you know.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)