Morality Sans God
John on September 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Mary Warnock is a well known “moral philosopher”, considered Britains best by some. In December of 2000, the Guardian published a list of Mary Warnock’s favorite books. Her list includes works by Hume, Aristotle and Mill. She also includes a book by her husband in the list:
9. The Object of Morality by GJ Warnock
I make no apology for choosing a book by GJ Warnock, though he was my husband. He was a master of style and clarity, high virtues in philosophical writing. Like Alisdair McIntyre, and like Aristotle, he invites us to look at the nature of that man-made structure, morality, and to contemplate the need we have for it if the world is not to be even more intolerable than it often is. Those who are inclined to deny that morality can exist without a religious foundation should read every word of this book. [Ed: Bold added]
Jump ahead several years. Yesterday the Telegraph published an article by Warnock in which she said:
Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.
“I’m absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there’s a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.
“Actually I’ve just written an article called ‘A Duty to Die?’ for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.”
She went on: “If you’ve an advance directive, appointing someone else to act on your behalf, if you become incapacitated, then I think there is a hope that your advocate may say that you would not wish to live in this condition so please try to help her die.
“I think that’s the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you’d be licensing people to put others down.”
Um…okay. Suddenly, I’m inclined to deny that morality can exist without a religious foundation.
[HT: Hot Air for the Telegraph piece]
This is a sign of a financially prosperous society. Poor Africans/Indians etc. die a slow and agonizing death sometimes without pain medicine. But is a greedy and hedonistic society we can even afford to dictate death, even when we can pump massive amounts of morphine into people.
Technology becomes a god.
September 20, 2008 @ 5:37 amI was relieved after his cancer surgery that my father was given morphine. The pain he was in after they carved him up was deplorable. They kept him on it to try and make him as comfortable as possible. He died seven days later. I view technological advances as evidence of God’s grace to a sinful world. The fact that this technology is not available to everyone is truly sad.
September 20, 2008 @ 10:17 amTechnology is great, however I cannot say it is a grace of God. That would make God a respector of persons. If God was actually passing out technological graces, He could give us a cure for cancer.
I consider the fact that people starve in this world is due to the sinful selfishness of some mgluttonous countries. Every year the earth produces enough food for everyone, but many do not get enough to live. But The NY Yankees are building a billion dollar stadium, we see the prioorities of the world.
The church in America will spend 1000 times the amount of money of debt payments and activities than it does on feeding the poor. I am sure those are not God’s priorities.
September 20, 2008 @ 10:28 amA technological advance is made possible by truth being discovered and applied. Since all truth resides with God, His allowing for any truth to be revealed that would help others is an extension of His mercy and grace. Why we do not have cures for certin diseases is a direct result of the Fall. If God so chooses to enter these arenas by revealing more truth, than so be it. After all, God is sovereign over all of His creation.
September 20, 2008 @ 12:13 pmJim – that is not grace. Grace is unmerited, not as a result of research, experimentation, and human discovery. Truth being discovered and applied would be God’s provision, which includes the technology available in creation and the wisdom of man given to him by God.
Grace must be void of works.
September 20, 2008 @ 12:53 pmGod is a God means and can work His grace through whichever vehicle He so chooses.
September 20, 2008 @ 1:28 pmGod’s grace does not come through the works of man’s hands. Much if not most of the technology we are discussing was discovered by the unsaved enemies of God. The only grace God shows them is the cross.
And many scientists boast of their discoveries, and unlike Abraham, when you boast, it is not of faith or grace. It is the fallen works of men that substitute the science and intellect of men for the praise of the Creator.
Even though, I always enjoyed much pain medicine when I had operations regardless of who discovered them! :)
September 20, 2008 @ 2:10 pmYou and I have completely different views on God and His graciousness to His creation. We’ll never agree on how that grace is dispensed.
September 20, 2008 @ 2:27 pmIt is only dispensed through the cross. Everything else is just a generic kindness. Even Satan traverses God’s creation and no one would suggest God shows him any grace.
There is no such thing as common grace, that is a term invented by reformed theology. The goodness and provision of the Creator does not mean that everyone has favor in His sight. Grace comes through Christ and His redemption.
September 20, 2008 @ 3:34 pmI’m reformed. That’s why we’ll never agree on how God dispenses His grace. It’s His unmerited favor that allows the sun to rise and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. I use to believe the way you do – not anymore – Scripture straightened me out.
September 20, 2008 @ 4:09 pmI know. :evil:
September 20, 2008 @ 4:20 pmMorality without God = death
Morality without God = mirage
Morality without God = humanism
Morality without God = legalism
Morality without God = religion
September 21, 2008 @ 12:27 pmYou know, it’s much easier to avoid second-guessing god all together. You see, since there is no evidence that he even exists, trying to determine what he thinks and what he is like etc. etc. is a pretty fruitless effort.
Technology is a gift from man. Human beings make technology because we have the wit to do so. We have the wit to do so because we are apes that managed to find thinking to be a powerful new evolutionary niche.
Technology is one of the fruits of life. It is an outgrowth of human evolutionary survival strategies, in exactly the same way that a beaver dam is an outgrowth of the beaver’s evolutionary survival strategy.
Once you have this kinds of understandings and insight, what good does belief in the supernatural do you?
Once you understand that there is no reason to believe in a supernatural judge for your actions, the ONLY standard for moral behavior becomes compassion. Letting people suffer is not compassion. The fact that your belief in god makes you think that you have some special moral priveledge that lets you decide that people should live against their will, suggests to me that your whole religion is immoral.
Now obviously things are more complicated than this when it comes to chosing death, but your claims for divine knowledge only muddy the discussion. The idea that you know that god exists is laughable. The idea that you know what god wants is obscene.
See? Humanism rocks!
October 13, 2008 @ 3:13 pmWow, it was confusing before but now it all makes sense…
NOT!
October 13, 2008 @ 3:25 pmWhat confuses you? Please say more.
Frankly what I find confusing is the whole idea that believing in stories about magic and miracles somehow makes you a better person. I like fantasy as much as the next guy, but I don’t pretend that my fantasies are reality, and I CERTAINLY don’t pretend that my fantasies give me some special insight into the nature of morality.
October 14, 2008 @ 8:40 amGranted you wouldn’t call them “fantasies” but you do claim a special insight into morality.
Here.
Here.
I wouldn’t call my views fantasies either, btw.
October 14, 2008 @ 9:10 amJohn, you misunderstand.
I don’t see the insights you linked to as “special” they are just my opinions about morality given my values and the reason that I apply to the issues I wrote about. Nothing “special” about them. They are ordinary ideas made by an ordinary man using ordinary reason and ordinary compassion for my fellow human being.
What I am refering to when I speak of a special insight into morality is the idea that:
1) You have evidence that the universe has an intelligent creator
2) You have some reason (any reason at all) to believe that you can speak for the creator of the universe.
3) Your special relationship with the creator of the universe gives you any authority to decide what is moral and what is immoral.
4) This moral authority allows you to make moral statements without supporting them with anything resembling a well-reasoned arguement.
I don’t object to people taking the stand that euthenasia is immoral – what I object to is the idea that you can say that it’s immoral because GOD says it is. You don’t speak for god. I reject any claim ever made by anyone today, or throughout history who has said that he or she speaks for the creator of the universe.
October 14, 2008 @ 10:09 amButting in for a moment:
Paul said, in part,
And not speaking for John either, but I’m not sure that he or anyone else claims to speak for God in some ultimate sense. This is not to say God’s will can’t be revealed to men in some other manner.
But along those lines: What mode of speaking would you then accept as valid? Is this the recycled attempt to have the challenge put forth by Betrand Russell to the effect there needs to be some cosmic magic show before he would accept any words from God? What proof or demonstration would be sufficient in your opinion? In the cosmological sense, the issue of God can be defended and that kind of anti-God argument was answered long ago.
Is there a separate domain for morals that does not end up being circular(that which those in power deem, which is ultimately invalid), or culturally derived(which can easily be shown to be invalid), or not end up being–in the final analysis–subjective in one way or another?
If morals are not valid, within context of course, across the spectrum, then they are not valid at all.
There is the charge of “ageism” by which modern sensibilities harshly judge the habits and mores of the past, like slavery. True. And we often project our own issues unfairly onto the past. But this merely means that societies evolve morally as well as technologically.
But, as G.K. Chesterton pointed out, at some point either we can find a way to objectively, sans cultural influsences, say that either something is immoral or not beyond personal tastes. Else what we have is something similar to your precis on technology. We have a gift. But gifts don’t create morality any more than hammers and cars do. Making life easier and more comfortable is not only a side issue having little to do with morals, it can lead to problems.
So, in your estimation, it seems morals would merely be–like the technology that many people falsly think will save us from other sins but does nothing to address cultural issues–the outgrowth, or function, of evolutionary biology, an adaptation of what “works” for survival of species orientation, and nothing more. Thus some lizards can change colors and some animals have other mechnisms like giant stomach and suckers and probosci, for survival. So too, humans have evolved ways of survival dealing with notions.
But ultimately that’s utilitarianism, and not morals.
AS we know, saying “that which works most efficiently for species survival” can also include some rather horrific ideas and actions, and is not moral at all.
And of course it depends on whose values you choose.
Not everyone is on board with Stephen Pinker, for example, or the perfunctory King of Spain now declaring chimps to be humans de jure as well as de facto, or Richard Dawkins notions about animals rights and advocating outlawing religious teachings from parents. Just to name a few Brave New World edicts that bear no sense of proportion or fairness or logic.
(In fact, one could say that extending rights to animals is an act of sheer nihlism in that it negates the very core of “rights” and “moral treatments” as arbitrary and not of a mental contruct at all).
So as we see, the Dawkins/Dennett/Pinker axis if tilting a little off base from the culture.
October 14, 2008 @ 10:43 amPaul,
We’re moving the goal posts now. You’ve presented your considered opinion based on your beliefs and I’ve done the same. Neither one of us can prove our beliefs to be true but we both hold them just the same.
For the record, I never claimed to speak for God. I never claimed to have “authority” to decide what is moral or immoral. Like you I have an opinion.
I’ve made plenty of well reasoned arguments. Ultimately, morality is not a matter of reason. An honest atheist would admit as much.
October 14, 2008 @ 10:47 amOne more point:
Once you start injecting religion into moral debate, you kill the debate.
Take embryonic stem cell research: Here is a technology that has huge potential for both human benefit and moral abuse. Consider this hypothetical situation:
Suppose you want to say that embryonic stem cell research is murder, because life is “sacred” (whatever that means), and life begins at conception – never mind that the zygote being used was going into the furnace anyway – you are just making a simple moral claim.
But what if you took half the zygote and grew a baby, and used the other half for research? Wouldn’t this be like donating blood? I mean how would that be wrong?
But wait a minute! You now have 2 half zygotes! Either one can be grown into a baby, so do you now have TWO people you are responsible for? Are you still committing murder by using one for experiments? Why not divide each of those? Heck, the moral imperative to preserve life almost MANDATES that you use the zygote to create a whole clone army!
What causes this moral dilemma? The definition that life is sacred. What does sacred mean? As far as I can tell, sacred means “I value this because god wants me to” or even “this is sacred because I say it is”
You can see how once you start using religious definitions of reality you have completely derailed the conversation. Since your definitions of what is true do not rest on anything other than your religious dogma, you are INCAPABLE of having a meaningful discussion of the moral implications of the whole event.
The truth is that I don’t know if the above scenario is even possible using stem-cell research, but I bet you don’t’ either! These sorts of medical ethics need to be determined by experts who understand the technology and understand the issues, not by a bunch of poorly informed religiously motivated laymen, and CERTAINLY not by self-appointed spokesmen for god.
But we don’t’ get to have these kinds of conversations, precisely because you Christians have managed to field political candidates who are willing to buy into your dogmatic hard-line “god told me what’s moral” approach to ethics.
Meanwhile zygotes are being burned by the thousands every year, while thousands of people suffer from a wide variety of chronic illnesses that might well be treated if Christians hadn’t blocked the funding. Why? Because they believe that they can speak for god. And for no other reason.
Christianity has a long and dark tradition of blocking medical advancements. It seems that it is almost always more morally acceptable to let people suffer under your faith. This was true when the church worked to criminalize autopsies, it’s true when they try to keep people ignorant of birth control and it’s true about euthanasia and stem-cell research.
Here is what I think is really going on: People have a moral instinct for purity. In other words we don’t like things that are “icky” we like things to be clean and un-diseased. This is part of our psychological equipment as evolved primates. It is also one of several “moral instincts” that humans have (others included valuing community, obeying authority etc. etc.) . This moral instinct expresses itself as an emotional aversion to certain sights sounds tastes smells and ideas.
So you run across euthanasia or stem cell research or birth control or homosexuality or whatever, and this emotional response is activated. It is not a rational response, it is just an “icky” feeling. You can’t justify it logically so you rationalize this and justify it as “god’s will” and then demand that the people around you act in a way to keep you inside your comfort zone. You label this as morality, and then you callously ignore the fact that your demands are hurting the people around you. You use your “god’s will” argument to stifle all debate on the subject, secure in the knowledge of your “moral superiority.”
This is the psychology of oppression, and history is replete with examples of religion (not just Christian religion, but many religions) engaging in exactly this practice.
October 14, 2008 @ 10:58 amAnd it would help to know the current take on these things also, Paul–which tends to not help the debates.
The issue of ESC research is all but finished. Michael Fumento has demonstrated the falsity of many claims about this even not injected moral suasion into this. The adult versions of stem cells leapfrog over the whole issue, and don’t even destroy embryos in the process. Moreover, the we can also sidestep this issue when we realize now that reseachers have found that contra the claim of the pluripotency of ESC, the adult stem cell lines can do this as well in many clinical trials. Not to mention the new technique of coaxing plain cells into doing what we though the ESC’s alone could do.
In any case, it was a matter of principle. Spontaneous abortions also occur all the time. This is not inducement to make others follow suit nor does it justify experimentation on ESCs. You can’t say that just because many go unused, or bound for waste, therefore the procudures you have for research are also justified. That is non-sequiter to the hilt.
AS to the other accusations, I must refer you to BeastRabban’s website, where he goes over these “dark” accusations against the Church. And finds its a mixed bag, at most. As with the accusations about Copernicus and Galileo, the real history is turned into a Readers’ Digest format for some people. I don’t have time here, but the story of the Church’s relation to science is not the etnernal warfare some suggest. It is more complicated than that, and often had to do with cultural issues that got injected into the Church but not usually flowing from Christian teaching per se.
October 14, 2008 @ 11:17 amFollow up note:
Christians did not “block” any funding of ESC. Nor did they have any effect one way or another on research developments in this area.
The funding is in full force on most lines already created by and for ESCs. There was a Federal ban still extant on NEW lines of ESCs. Now that issue is all but resolved with new techniques anyhow. No doubt that irritated people but is not the full story here.
There is no generalized ban on private nor state funding for new lines, for that matter.
As you see, this is one example of how life sometimes gets complicated and you need to have full context of things, Paul.
This is not to say there was never any moral issue whatsoever. There was. As there should be. I am not going to get into a definitions war here, but some people feel that you have to draw firm lines somewhere. The very definition of human is now turning into a slippery slope for some people.
October 14, 2008 @ 11:22 amJohn,
I’m not sure I have seen you express ANY opinions other than “Suddenly, I’m inclined to deny that morality can exist without a religious foundation.” But OK fair enough.
Wakefield said:
Well, I’d be inclined to always be skeptical about any being claiming to be the creator of the universe; however, I suppose that given that the creator of the universe has that kind of power, I’m sure he could figure out a way to demonstrate his divinity.
That said, the fact that he has not done so suggests that either he cannot or he chooses not to. Either way, I’m left with the truth of the matter which is: I don’t know if there is a god, and neither do you.
Given this truth, I am left with having to assume that he does not exist, for exactly the same reasons that I am left to assume that Bigfoot doesn’t exist.
ESC may or may not be finished (as I said, I am not technically expert enough on this to know frankly), but that’s not the point. The religious right has used its political influence to block life-saving research of the grounds that “sacred” is a meaningful definition of reality. It will do so again. This is a political reality that I oppose on the principal that religious definitions of morality are uncoupled from anything evidence-based.
Isn’t it funny though that’s gods will always seems to be revealed in private and then only to people who have political aspirations? It’s a little too convenient don’t you think?
But that’s just the problem isn’t it? People who claim to know god’s will have no standard of proof. As a result you are just as likely to get a well-meaning nut-job as you are to get a wise man, as you are to get a sociopath saying these things. Why would you believe anyone who said they knew god’s will?
This is an assumption on your part. Morality has always been provisional, and it will always be provisional. Our basic moral impulses are emotional, non-rational, and semi-instinctual. We are basically cave-men, and we have a cave-man morality. We have created a society that puts us into moral dilemmas that our cave-man instincts are not well suited to handle (Like ESC research) as a result, we need to apply reason and do the best we can to create the kind of world we want to live in. We will ALLWAYS be jury-rigging morality decisions as we go along. This is why discussion is so vital to these issues. It is also why “because god said so” is so deadly when it comes to moral debates. It is important that we have these debates, and religious language kills the debate.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because you can’t create a hard and fast definition of morality that there is no such thing as morality, or that some guy who says he speaks for god CAN define morality.
I have no objection to people informing their morality through their spiritual experience. Note that this is different from religious beliefs. But I do have an issue with them bringing their religious beliefs into the public sphere when it comes to deciding public policy. If you can’t justify your moral stances through reasoned debate then stay out of the discussion! It only muddies the waters, and prevents moral consensus and compromise.
Well, since I don’t believe in “sin” as an idea, I don’t think we need to be “saved” from anything. I think that we are a species struggling to find its identity. I think that this a good thing, because we need to find our identity in order to figure out how to keep from blowing up the planet. I think that religion is “old technology” in working on this effort and that right now, what you guys are doing in promoting your false beliefs in an authoritarian creator deity, Jesus as the son of that creator deity, original sin, heaven and hell etc. is one of the most destructive obstacles on the planet in our quest to develop our identity as a species.
Unfortunately we are a long way away from changing the minds of all the religious people in the world, and our ability to destroy ourselves is growing much faster than our willingness to embrace reality. So I have my doubts about our survival.
But I’m doing my part – A guy has got to hope, after all.
October 14, 2008 @ 12:06 pmIn the interest of full disclosure – stem cell research is a personal issue for me. I have never believed what you christians are selling, but I only really started to hate christianity when you got Bush to veto the stem-cell research bill. I frankly don’t care that there are now alternatives. The years of delay in research that his religiously inspired decision caused are all the evidence I need to know evil bull-shit when I see it.
Undiferentiated clumps of cells should not have the same civil rights as whole human beings.
“Culture of life” my ass!
October 14, 2008 @ 12:16 pmStruggling to find “identity” is the same genre of struggling to find one’s “station” in life.
An interesting idea for another time in some drawn out paper.
But not one that answered the question.
You are correct to say that just because something is not easy to ascertain does not–in itself–mean it does not exist. Keep in mind that rule applies elsewhere too. However, at some point it has to be distilled down beyond the purely subjective, which is where moral notions hover for most people. Nor can we look to the law. Lawyers and judges both point out the two are in separate realms.
Either morals stand apart from personal or subjective tastes or evolutionary minutia as utlitarian survival, or they don’t stand at all. They merely result in what powerful lobbies or people say they are and have no more weight than who’s in power.
If they are emotive in origin then what must be admitted is that morals are not reasonable at all.
Just subjective desires.
AS to the rest of your charges, that is just abusive nonsense. And has been answered elsewhere. We don’t have time for the full monty here, but neigher Bigfoot nor Yeti nor magic purple dragons are really the analogy of proof/non-proof dichotomy you think, since they don’t address the causal issues of the universe itself. One can claim analogy to other faith’s creation stories about turtles on backs, and the like. But at that level I would liken the search to a different reasoning than neat stories, even if they are false. This is old hat. Do you not think I’ve seen this before? Or theologians like Peter Kreeft, for that matter?
Men have desires for hunger. There is such a thing as food. Men have sexual desires. There exists such a thing as sex. Men have career aspirations or “stations in life”–and thus there are those things. Men have higher aspirations about meaning that ultimately go beyond the utilitarian/materialistic dogma that says “well–that’s just the way the cookie crumbles”–and by this extrapolation from desires I think something of a higher order than man exists.
It better.
But that’s just one level of reasoning about God. There are others.
And then this:
Wow–so that’s the kiss of death eh?
Mighty suspect among all the things you could name, I imagine. Kinda flimsy, too. And puerile. Sorta like the so-called “undecideds” on TV interviwed the other night about McCain vs. Obama. These hapless chuckleheads decided that one–just ONE–stray comment by McCain that pushed them over the line was justification for voting for Obama and his milkwater socialism. Wow.
But there was little if ANY delay from ESC research. Why? It turns out that, whether by design or accident, the embryonic versions of stem cells never yielded much in the way of “life saving” data except continued promises from researchers with their hands out at the Federal pig trough. By contrast, the adult versions, ASCs, never had this problem and treat over 70 ailments. I would say that’s more proximate tot he goal of “life affirming”–even if we never made Superman (Christopher Reeve) walk again. While they (ASCs)had Federal funding also, they were never overdependent on this and savvy venture capitalists early on saw the writing on the wall.
Mythology lives well in so-called “objective” issues as well, I see. Sorry about that level of hope for mankind. That well is rather dry. The bloodiest adventures in force have come from secular regimes in pursuit of the very dreams of human brotherhood via force. The kinds of which the likes of Dawkins just don’t understand that he only thinks he can reform this time for a second round of human nature alteration. More fool him.
October 14, 2008 @ 1:21 pmPaul,
“worthy of respect or dedication”
I’ll grant you can’t get there apart from belief. In fact, I already did grant that. There is no purely logical reason to view life as sacred. The purely logical view is that life is a happenstance of chemistry. Again, the honest atheists over the decades have admitted as much.
As for stem cells, based on what you’ve written, I’ll warrant I know much more about it that you do. For starters, I know that Embryonic Stem Cell Research funding was not prevented by President Bush. Only federal funding with tax dollars was cut off. The field was still wide open for states and independent research dollars. Here in CA people voted to devote six billion to the research which, if divided among the people working in the field, could no doubt fund them over the last 7 years with money to spare.
In addition, I know that all of this money has been wasted. ESCR has not generated one significant medical advance or treatment in the years it has studied. By contrast, Adult Stem Cell techniques have shown promising results including curing diabetes in human beings.
Finally, I know as Wakefield alluded, that ESCR is now utterly unnecessary.
The real issue here, Paul, is that uninformed guys like you have bought into a line of bull promulgated by the far left which says that evil Christians stopped the advance of science. It’s a complete lie at every level, but if you want to go on believing (and hating) as a matter of faith, that’s fine with me. In truth, the lie that ESCR is a panacea has been exploited by medical charlatans to enrich their own bank accounts.
October 14, 2008 @ 1:57 pmRadical Islam might–MIGHT–be one pathway to destruction. Is it the only way?
But while I’ll never say the case is overstated, this is still painting with a rather broad brush to say that religious nuts are the only one’s who’ve ever had designs for the keypad to the Nuke closet.
Some of the world’s deadliest and most “aspiring to science” bone-crunching, jackbooted, Darwinian-Ethics-Made-Real-For-The-Rest-Of-Us, totalitarian regimes to this day are far more heavily armed than Osama bin Laden. And they are safely secular in both appearance and philosophy.
And deadly as hell.
October 14, 2008 @ 2:27 pmHe has.
But the Scriptures also indicate some men choose to live in darkness. Also: For a variety of reasons, we can safely say there is more to the universe than often meets the eye, and not all things are immediately obvious. Like the nature of magnetism, electricity, the existence of photons, and other items not readily discernable. Pascal also made the point that seeing is an act of will as much as the senses and that men can be estranged from God by purpose.
As to embryonic Stem cell research, the moral aspect of this is that even though it is an “undifferentiated clump of cells”, we know this is not the final word on “value” or life. Obviously I’m not going to convince anyone of this to complete agreement about life’s sacredness. But at what point do we even assign the word “value” to ANY form of life? Differentiated or not, the full DNA compliment is there, with only time and nutrition issues usually holding up the unfolding and divisional processes.
How can we know this? Science alone cannot answer this, no. But we can take some examples to show that saying that embryos have no value is in itself a questionable proposition from some quarters. If I were to have access to the “mere” and “undifferentiated” clumps of cells that represented a lab’s preservation of the endangerd California Condor or some other species, I can assure you that environmentalist activists would NOT be thinking it too funny my argument for making a nice juicey omelette out of the last set of fertilized, embryonic stage condor eggs. Certainly not on the basis that these are just “clumps” of tissue only, and don’t represent “real” or “potential” birds.
I’ll put money on that. The issue is that for humans, with more fecundity than condors, some think of this tissue as far more disposable than condors. It’s just where you place your values on embryos–not that such values don’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t exist.
Dig?
Children don’t have all the rights of adults, for example. That’s provisional pragmatism. Further down the line of development, most members of the Left side of the aisle don’t think fetuses have the rights adults and children have. Yet those cells, often destroyed as late as 28 weeks, certainly have the full complement of differentiation. So apparently that’s not what is in the mind. It appears the whole bruha about “differentiation” is a red herring. We now have on record cases of outright infanticide, though of course that’s not what its called. Some heartily approve. So looks like differentiation is far from the point. Hmmm.
The point is that some people in power, via the courts, made a decision that has less to do with the science of when life begins (which the court in the Roe case said it would not be addressing), than the fact that some people have social goals where sexual freedom is paramount and abortion is the backup valve.
Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlin, to her eternal credit, let the liberal cat out of the bag on stem cell research: She plainly admitted that for her and many others, the motivating factor was that if some putative social “goodness” could come from ESC research, then the wonderful result would be to also soften the reality about abortion in the public’s mind.
We appreciate her candor.
October 14, 2008 @ 3:40 pmHmm… It seems to me that morality, like the divine, are tied to states of mind. Moral indignation, moral calculus moral outrage, moral actions all seem to stem from certain states of mind. Morality, like the divine can and should be viewed as a naturalistic phenomena that can be studied, perhaps not through the deconstruction approach of most scientific inquiry but rather through a systems approach. I’ve read some research in psychology on the matter, and It looks pretty promising for providing a naturalistic view of morality.
Certainly the bible is a horrible source for moral truth.
Your vision averages out the ambient light in the environment and allows your brain to make judgments about the relative darkness of an object based on this variable point of reference. This is why a snowball in the dark looks white and a lump of coal in the sunshine looks black, even though they both are reflecting the same amount of light onto your retina
Maybe morality works something like that. On the basis of a number of mutable variables that are gauged against a fluctuating background of “ambient moral circumstances.” That’s why it would be morally wrong for one person to say, murder a doctor, and it would be morally correct for another to say, abort a fetus.
But again, I’m no philosopher, I’m just a guy with an opinion and an axe to grind. I do enjoy these kinds of conversations though. For one thing they reveal a lot about the way that people think.
I’m not sure what you consider abusive. I certainly have not intended any abuse, although my use of the words “bullshit” and “ass” were a bit unfortunate. What can I say? I’m a passionate guy! Please accept my apology, if I have offended.
Well, it’s good to see that you are educated in the arguments against your position, as it does save time. And you know, the answer to this issue is simple – we don’t know what caused the universe, or even if cause and effect are meaningful ways to talk about the existence of the universe. That said, if you want to anthropomorphize this mystery that’s your choice, but please don’t expect me to take you seriously if you want to use this anthropomorphism as a moral argument for ANYTHING.
Why? What does it mean to you if there is no higher order intelligence? I do not ask this as a rhetorical question. I really want to know.
Wow indeed! You have managed to bring in conservative political rhetoric right along- side an ad-homonym attack. Impressive! However, my hatred is not purile. Rather it is parental. My child is sick. My president has used nothing more than religious dogma and the support of his fellow religious dogmatists to block funding to a potential cure for her. Both you and John obfuscate this fact by sighting unintended positive consequences of his bad decision. Bush has made dozens of famously bad decisions. He was bound to get lucky on one of them. However, it is the intended consequences of his decision that makes it bad.
Now I know that both of you seem to think otherwise, so please, If you know of any reliable source anywhere that shows that Bush did NOT veto funding for ESC for religious reasons and to gain the support of his religious base, please drop me a link, and I’ll reconsider my position.
Two points:
A) The secular regimes you spoke of are largely dead, and their ideologies along with them. You see these regimes have died because their ideologies don’t work. They failed the reality test (yes at the tragic cost of millions of lives). What is the reality test that your belief system will rise and fall on? Oh yeah! There is none, because your belief system is not based in reality. It’s pure mythology, so it CANNOT be amended by any means.
Instead it just keeps mutating to fit into the culture at large. Fortunately, right now, Christianity is going through a benign period, but this has certainly not always been the case. In fact, it is quite easy to imagine that it is only a matter of time before it becomes a blood thirsty system of oppression once again.
Who knows, maybe by the end of the century, Islam will be the peaceful and Christianity will be the violent religion. And since it has no reality test to fail, there is really no way to prevent this.
Except rationalism of course. That is, one can stop believing in supernatural entities, sacred texts and divine revelation. This is not to say that we don’t need moral codes, or even mythology and ritual. It is only to say that our moral codes should be based on reason, and our mythology should be acknowledged AS mythology.
B) I don’t think Dawkins wants to reform human nature. I think that he wants to educate people out of their superstition. That’s not reforming human nature any more than spreading literacy is reforming human nature. A laudable goal.
What you are missing here is that there is no reason not to view ALL experience, all “creation” as sacred. It is possible to view even the profane as sacred. This does nothing to detract from the sacred, it is only an acknowledgement of the sacred nature of creation.
See, if you want to talk about sacrament, I can do that as well as you. I don’t have to believe in a personal god to recognize the sacred all around me. I have sat in meditation and found experiences of sanctity and of love that I simply cannot express in words. I did not find any invisible persons staring back at me however.
That said, I don’t have to buy the argument that sanctity starts when a sperm fertilizes an egg either. Nice try though.
Ok, three points here
1) As I stated before, my disgust with Bush’s policies is that he is making medical decisions based on the moral calculus of such luminaries as Ted Haggart instead of the moral calculus of actual medical ethicists. Priests, congregations and political pundits lack the technical and philosophical expertise to inform these decisions, but instead of listening to them, he when with what his religious counsel told him.
2) If you are going to post links, please link me to reputable resources. A conservative Christian blog is hardly a reputable source for unbiased information about factual issues. I promise that I will not link you to the daily KOS to back any of my points, ok?
3) I do not “buy into the lie” In fact, I actively promote the worldview that says that a decision to believe in the supernatural is a decision to embrace ignorance. I am not a passive consumer of “left wing” ideology. I am a proud creator of left wing ideology. GOOOOOOO LIBERALS!!!!! Of course, “liberal” and “left wing” probably mean very different things to you and me. I suppose that my ideas seem much more reasonable to me than they do to you. But as I said, I do like to see how other people think.
Of course not. There are plenty of dominionists who would love the apocalypse to come too. Pastor Hagee comes to mind (and please don’t tell me that’s propaganda – I have heard him speak – I base my opinion on first hand info). In addition there are several totalitarian regimes who might get a violent sociopath into power who got a hold of WMD’s and decided to use them and started a war. Some of these are secular. Athiesm is no garantee of morality – just look at Carl Rove – he was an athiest who played you Christans like a harp from hell, and the whole country has suffered for it.
But to paraphrase Sam Harris. No one ever committed genocide because they were too reasonable.
Yes, and he very conveniently made it to a few private individuals who just happened to be in political power and needed “the word of god” to back up their authority. And not only that, but he did it in such a way that maximizes the ability for all the churches in Christendom to concentrate power and money into the hands of the churches. It worked out so nicely didn’t it?
But unlike magnetism electricity and the rest, there is no verifiable point of reference to prove the validity of your faith. Instead you cling to the idea that belief without proof is good simply because the authorities in your life and in your church tell you that. But of COURSE they would say that, it’s so terribly hard to actually come up with REASONS to get people to obey you, isn’t it?
Faith is fundamentally dishonest. Faith is an excuse to lie to yourself and tell yourself that you know something is true, when in fact you know no such thing. But in the end, your argument simply goes back to my bigfoot counter argument. I can do this all day.
One point I would like to make here is just this – you may argue that “believing is seeing” and you know what, I would agree that subjective experience actually DOES count as evidence. The problem is that we need to answer the question “evidence of what?” Purhapse your experience of god is evidence of a right temporal lobe brain event. I can point to research that supports this conclusion. See? Naturalism rides again!
Your whole argument is rendered moot by the fact that the “clumps of cells” we are talking about are already slated for destruction. The decision about preserving life has already been made.
Yep. Sometimes abortion is good.
October 14, 2008 @ 6:31 pmRead the account of atheist (and doctor I believe) Charles Krauthammer who was on the President’s panel that deliberated on this issue:
The dominionist garbage you’re spouting here has everything to do with liberal fundraising and little to do with reality.
That would be a surprise to many of the people in China, Venezuela, Russia, India, North Korea, Cuba and a few other places around the globe. Though I’d agree with you that their atheistic regimes did not pass the reality test when implemented. That should tell you something, perhaps.
It is also quite easy to imagine people much like yourself, who feel their fellow citizens should have no right to believe what they wish, might turn this into another atheist tyranny. It has happened before and, indeed, is happening now. The next French terror could be here.
I never said you couldn’t. Read back, Paul. You asked for a definition. I went to a dictionary and gave you one. I’m sorry if the dictionary offended you.
Good for you. It would be an appealing outcome of your experience if you could offer individuals with different experiences of transcendence some consideration. But it seems obvious you can’t.
And that’s where you lost me. If you’d looked, you’d see that each post on the blog linked to a newspaper story of some kind. If that’s not good enough…it’s not my job to find links that suit you.
October 14, 2008 @ 10:19 pmNever let it be said that I cannot admit when I am wrong. That’s a good source. It appears that I have been mistaken on this issue. Thank you for enlightening me.
No it’s not. I have not been following liberal fundraising blogs for the last several years. I have been following dominionsit websites, articles and videos. Hagee is a good example of this. I knew about Hagee LONG before he made the news.
Look, every religious faith has a lunatic fringe. The same is true about political parties, philosophical organizations, etc. etc. Yours just happens to want to make the bible the law of the land and to bring about Armageddon.
These regimes have all become de-facto capitalist systems though. Communism is dead (OK, maybe Cuba is a hold out). The fact that they are totalitarian, and that those totalitarian regimes happen to be secular makes sense – no totalitarian wants a competing power structure – like a church – ruining their game. Theocracies also exist, and they are also totalitarian.
Note that they are not “atheistic” they are SECULAR. This means that there is a separation of church and state – perhaps a de-facto separation (like England), and perhaps a formal separation (like the USA). Frankly I’m not sure what you mean by “atheistic.” I know some governments suppress religion. Others simply exclude it from political power. Still other totalitarian regimes are theocracies. But none of the ideological absolutist “atheistic” forms of government (i.e. communism) are still around – they are either overthrown or degenerated into banana republics.
That said, what do you mean by “atheistic government?”
Now I know that we are called a democracy, and most of the industrial nations are also called democracies, and democracy is ALSO a secular form of government. In fact we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic, but that’s a topic for another discussion. We like to think of ourselves as a capitalist nation (capitalism being our economic system – which a separate concept from our governmental system), but like all industrial nations we are actually socialist (and becoming more so, thanks to our current financial crisis).
Now I know that this is a conservative blog, and I’m sure this is a hot button issue, and I don’t want to get side-tracked here. I simply want to point out that all the purely ideological forms of government have gone away. They have fallen into three basic categories: Socialist states, monarchies, and totalitarian regimes. All the socialist states have freedom of religion. Some of the monarchies and totalitarian regimes do, and some are theocracies.
All this said, my basic argument still stands: Religion lacks any point of reference by which it can test reality. As such it will always be prone to using its political power in bizarre and distorted ways – I mean, look at faith healing – it’s socially sanctioned con artistry. Now imagine that immoral belief system with the power of the military behind it. I shudder just thinking about it.
OK, now I’m insulted. You presume too much sir. I have never, nor will I ever support the idea that “citizens should have no right to believe what they wish.” People ABSOLUTELY have a right to freedom of religion. I simply reserve the right to make fun of the ridiculous things that come out of your mouth! Adam and Eve and the talking snake! Son of God! Resurrection! You might as well be talking about Zeenu and the souls that get blown up by H-bombs in scientology. Hilarious!!!
Do not presume that just because I don’t respect your beliefs that that doesn’t mean that I don’t respect your rights. That said, I DO respect some of your beliefs, just not the ridiculous ones. For example Judaism and therefore Christianity hold that all people have equal value even if they don’t have equal ability, status, or resources. This is a WONDERFUL belief. We could not have the USA without it(and I consider myself a patriot). It is one of our core values, and we owe it all to Judaism and Christianity. I just part company when you start talking about divine magic. But that’s what seperates religion from philosophy doesn’t it?
I’m not offended by that. Please stop making attributions. Please try to take what I say at face value. I try my hardest to say what I mean. My point was not that I find your argument offensive. My point was that I believe that your argument fails. Labeling something “sacred” is just a way of saying “I’m arbitrarily calling this thing special so that we can’t argue about it any more.” The easy counter to this is to label everything sacred, and now we can talk about it again.
You know I really love this discussion format. I love that you can go back and look at what was said. But I digress.
We are not talking about experiences here. We are talking about ideas of morality (I think). In fact I have not heard either of you actually discuss your experience of god, Christ or any of that jazz. If you want to talk about that I would positively LOVE to hear about your experience. I am extremely curious about it, and would love to learn more (and I don’t even have a hidden agenda or anything – psychology is one of my favorite topics)
See that’s where I disagree. If you want to link me to a source, link me to a primary source. What you linked me to were secondary sources. Give me an article by a journalist who makes your point, not to a guy who read a guy who read a journalist who might or might not have made your point. It’s just good scholarship.
October 15, 2008 @ 8:49 amOne of the mistakes that you guys on the religious right make (I think) is that you believe that there is an absolute morality. You then go on and compound that mistake by believing that you can know what that absolute morality is by reading a book of bronze-age mythology and political propaganda (the bible). Then, when people like me call bullshit on this whole practice, you retreat into positions such as “it’s a matter of faith” or “believing is seeing.”
This is weak. Let your arguments stand and fall on their own merits. Stop hiding behind the skirts of your deity, and acting like the authority of god has any actual meaning in the world. God is a sock puppet used by priests to promote their political ideologies. Sometimes this works out for the good. Sometimes it doesn’t. But if you are going to use arguments like “life is sacred” then you have to show WHY life is sacred. And you have to DEMONSTRATE that life is sacred, you can’t just assert it and then go “I know life is sacred because god said so.”
You Christians want to bring your faith into the political sphere – ok, well, freedom of speach gives you that right. But if you are going to promote your sense of morality in the public forum, you have to explain it in a way that people who don’t believe what you do can understand it. Divine fiat is not an argument. It is a cop out. You have to do better than that.
Euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research. On all of these your position is “life is sacred,” as if that is an argument. It’s not. It is a conversation killer. The real question is why is the sanctity of life so important that it is worth subjecting people to the cruelty of continued suffering? Why is the sanctity of life so important that it is worth taking away a woman’s right to have access to safe and effective abortions (note – you cannot take away a woman’s right to chose, you can only limit her access to safe healthcare). Why is the sanctity of life so important that you weigh the welfare of a clump of cells as being the same as my daughter’s health?
These are the questions that I am not hearing answers to. In fact, I get the impression that both of you guys are dancing around these questions, and changing the subject. You can side track by talking about the alternatives to stem cell research, or you can side track by talking about the moral risks of assisted suicide, or you can side track by taking about “life begins at conception.” None of these things answer the question though do they?
Why is the sanctity of life more important than human suffering? Not some of the time, not under certain circumstances, but as a moral absolute. As a black and white standard of morality. Why is that the line you draw in the sand?
October 15, 2008 @ 9:18 amPaul:
I am not going to get sidetracked either. I just don’t have the time anymore. However, these types of questions you insist upon returning to would be interesting to have fielded by an acquaintance of mine from the UK; one who is more in depth on both cultural and theological issues. I am not going to convince you of anything in that department since you’ve got the notion that revelation and proofs of God are all hooey. But perhaps BR could make some headway. He is busy with various projects at the moment, but you might want to try anyhow and scan his site at http://www.beastrabban.worpress.com . As a side note, however, I take a moment to let you link to an interesting article on “who believes what” when it comes to ideology, faith, and the Unseen world of ANY description. It seems that contrary to popular thinking, it is not the Right, nor Bible thumpers or the Fundamaniacs who’re the most susceptible to late night radio maven style conspiracy theory nuttiness, paranormal phenomenon, Bigfoot (since you brought him up too), or other taro card and netherworld dealings. Culturally, this is fascinating: Good people otherwise listed as secular falling for the asinine (what was you word again?) bovine waste imaginable.
I think the reality here is that (and confirmed in my own line of work and people I’ve met from all walks of life) MOST people, unlike YOU (to your credit, and myself and John and the others looking in) are not particularly thirsty for knowledge and take the accepted line on many things like politics, life, religion, the state, economics, the paranormal, REGARDLESS of what they believe about “ultimate origins” issues on things.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=86400
(also not “right wing” sites, since that’s your unpleasant bugbear du jour)
For his part, BR is hardly some Bible thumper of the imagery you seem to have in mind, but does know the Bible and his specialty is knocking down like bowling pins these specious, simpleton charges of the Dark Ages of Church history. For this one, also check out Rodney Stark, who utterly demolishes this myth of the Dark Ages, along with Jeffrey Burton Russell, who among other items will be more than happy to recount other mythologies the secular “progressive” “humanist” types concocted to bolster father Marx and Darwin and Dewey.
Untrue.
Worse than untrue. The USSR is gone structurally, but it can be demonstrated that demographically this secular regime created a cultural (and not just economic) wasteland whose repercussions are still being felt to this day. The Orthodox church is bolder, yes, but there are still lines not to cross. As to the main change in any case: This is not the case across the board. Or, I and others in the background of foreign policy studies would have noticed by now.
As to the allegation that Marxism is a dead hand; yes and no. From its heady days it is dead. But it is now being injected into politics via other means. Just ask Obama’s revolutionary pal and bomb tinkerer, Bill Ayers, “merely guy who lives down the street”. The ideology is dead for a practical reality, but unfortunately we are about to meet them in some middle ground I call milkwater socialism–or “Market Based Socialism” —a la Sweden–where the state controls the products of the means of production, but not the source itself. As we see from the current election bruha over the new Messiah, the feeling that something is automatically owed from person A to person B is alive and well here in the West as well, though just not as far down the path as Western Europe’s footsie playing with neo-Marxism. Still a rather obnoxious end, and one that is ultimately stultifying to the culture.
And yet, one that for the most part is the mantle taken up by most secularist writers over the last century, presuming such equalitarian notions to be the future. That in itself indicates they aren’t too darned bright under the skull cap.
Notice that most of your secularist leaders, intellectualoids, and other movers and shaker are almost to a man leftist in orientation. Francis Fukuyama has this take and others who want us to kind of kyotofy our foreign and domestic policy to UN and EU outsourcing, when as Mark Steyn noted, this laughable notion cannot stand against the demographic realities of a culturally dying Europe that has its secularism as an empty, sloganeering, happy-face on a stick, gimme gimme, handout, paternalistic society that treats adults like children and YET is falling to Islam as we speak. This is not Islam’s fault. It is the fact that people in all culture’s ultimately end up aspiring to something other than secular “progressives” telling them what they want to hear, or that we’ll take care of you womb to tomb (should you survive the former), and in so hijacking the primal concerns and struggles of life assure a situation where secular progressive Europe’s false math–premised on religious society birthrates–is now falling below replacement level. One presumes the reality of secularist economics of redistribution. A nation or nations where you don’t need to bother with anything but sleeping in and whetting sexual appetites is one where you lose your societal moorings and life becomes all happy fun time.
Sounds fun!
Except when it comes time to pay the bills, have children, and defend one’s own culture. None of which Europe is doing in droves right now. Life is more than sleeping in and sleeping with your pal’s wife. That’s why we have the much-derided “moral” suasions. Secularism, even in the milkwater modest form Europe is afflicted with, sounds fantastic. Paid vacations from the authorities, childless sex (except for the Muslims, who’re the main ones now filling up the maternity wards), kicking grandpa into the nursing home to be taken care of on the public dime.
But a society whose primal functions are now outsourced to government and for whom having grandparents around also finds that having the grandCHILDREN around is odious too.
That’s the ultimate legacy of secularism, or at least the most common variety of it–somebody else does the heavy lifting economically and socially, you live in a present tense moment cut off from your cultural roots by hedonism and comfort, and the ties to both the past and future are severed and replaced by promises of fun and freedom from struggle and government handouts.
What a deal! Europe prides itself, of course, on being “post Christian.” Hurray!
Boo on individualism, Sarah Palin/Frontier, American style!!!!
However: Very soon, more fool them, Europe will not only be post-Christian, it will simply be “post European.”
No weapon forged by the Soviets could possibly have caused this level of cultural damage as secularism has to Europe.
Again to those brutal regimes–they are in point of fact founded for the most part on “atheistic” notions. And they proclaim this. Their words, and not my own formulation. I have studied these regimes in detail (that’s my background, foreign relations and political science and Western Political Philosophy), and promise you that once again we approaching “distinction without difference” when it comes to hashing the terminology. These nations have tribal regions and faiths that have yet to be crushed and driven into exile completely. But sure as hell not for lack of trying. Just ask dissidents like Alexander Solzhenitsyn or Vladimir Bukovsky. Or consult their writings on this matter. Or those of Richard Pipes, for example, or Robert Conquest, or Milovan Dijilas. Or Adam Michnik. My own website has a listing of many of these books as well, not making a plug here since I get little traffic anymore.
The Chinese regime is utterly horrific in its own persecution. North Korea is just as bad if not worse in most respects and while both nations have their “faiths” in the hills hiding out, they are hardly inclusive of anything that does not promote the party line. (Kind of reminds me of liberals, to be blunt).
And for the most part, the dangers these regimes impose–both internal and external–are still very real. By “secular” we cannot say they are secular in the same way Sweden is (though that is not my choice of nation either, to be blunt), but that the issue was enforced early on and not left to the culture at large.
You can’t have this both ways. Naughty naughty, on trying to use loaded dice here, Paul. If people who claimed to be Christians doing the Lord’s work on earth are really to blame for some miseries in the past of which many were overblown by guys like Sam Harris and Carl Sagan and Dawkins, and other ignorant jackals, then by the same loose standard we can safely say you can’t wiggle off the hook so easily by using the Harris method—and just declaring that thousands of Party officials and HUNDREDS of millions of deaths from/of atheistic regimes were “not really” atheistic, or “not really” secular, or somesuch, or that their “religion” was the “cult of personality” and other humbug. They are liable. And it is worth noting here than atheists like Christopher Hitchens, while admitting the horrors, joins the others at times in even defending the nature of these regimes based on the harsh situations their “progressive” notions had to endure. So they HAD to brutalize to bring glory to mankind….cuz…..the Czar’s men were still on the rampage….or……Nationalist leaders were still in the hills around Beijing. And so forth.
___________________________
AS to stem cells and the rest, it is YOU who is sidetracked, along with the other introductory teenybopper Research 101 papers you’ve decided to bring into the fold here. We told you the context and full story on stem cells, and in true secularist form you’ve decided, in historical revisionism fashion, to simply state what SHOULD be the “truth” should the damned things have worked, which they do not, did not, will not on the level of ESCR, but were maintained and positited on false premises that had political and social agendas–as some like Quindlin have all but sorely admitted–and was served up to mock “religious” people but lacked the real Monty except for the need for yet more forced funding. I told you a methodology on how value actually CAN be imputed to living beings that are simply not fully manifested, but that in the current culture this is not accepted. I did not say I am here to change minds. I merely told you that secularist environmentalists in their own turn have their methods for determining that birds and lizard “blobs of cells” have value “imputed” when they feel it culturally convenient. This was not positited as a proof for God, per se. But an example of cultural conditioning I consider gone awry. I have held humans to be more important than non-sentient creatures.
Either you have an explosive retort to that (which does not involved suppositions about what “should” be the “truth n’ human goodness” position on this), or you do not.
You do not.
And despite your verbal snow on who the radicalized nuts really are and what constitutes danger, we are not yet out of the woods on the secular regimes’ dear leaders causing untold trouble, nor the equally obnoxious past of most humanistic type pointy heads advocating the very socialist paths than even lefties like Orwell warned about in finally–in the name of human goodness and brotherhood–crushing dissent, freedom, market based fairness, justice, and traditional values. Even ACLU card members like William Henry III finally relented the elitism for the brief moment while still praising it and understood that in the future, admitted it would be the “secular progressives” who deliver mankind to hell, not anyone from the Right, boogeyman that you think it is, Paul.
John in all probability got his info from fairly much the same secular sources I have in the long run. He linked for convenience, as we all do.
Nevertheless, if this is a sticking point, then see below:
http://www.fumento.com/sustemcell.html
Also: BeastRabban is not a right-winger in any sense of that definition that I’ve found to date.
October 15, 2008 @ 1:32 pmPaul:
It is not quite that simple. See Peter Kreeft on this one. Similar to the issue of coal and snowballs, the seeing is there but the reasoning often is not apparent. It took research into the nature of how the eye adjusts to determine that trick of the mind’s eye. Likewise, as Kreeft has pointed out, Christianity is not a-b, or a2+b2=C2, but more like E=MC2. Ultimate origins DO matter, but saying that anthropomorphism is what I’ve done is absurd.
This kind of thing IS done by Dawkins and his ilk on another level, and use this line of reasoning that God would not/could not/ do X, or allow Y, based on human attributes that would not fool a 12 year old. And the Copenhagen interpretation as Man the Creator by sheer weight of Observation or the Universe Bringing Itself Into Reality BECAUSE we observe it fit this billing, but that’s not what I’ve said. The issue of ultimate origins is not so straightforward, but it DOES annoy some people due to the reality that the Cosmos cannot self produce, or we have no evidence of a verifiable sample size beyond one nor can we count on the very UNobervables (like alternate universe bubbles) some are trying to squeeze in here, as an escape route to singularities, etc. If something is beyond time and space itself and yet can self produce, the notion is crackpot from the beginning, since the requirment is for it to be both inside and outside the mechanical functionality of time itself.
Something cannot work on the outside of All and be on the inside for the functionality part at the same time, IF by this we adhere to the strict definitions science gives about what time and space actually are.
If you want to be loosey-goosey, you can fall into the same trap as the much-derided “God of the Gaps” arguement hurled at Christians, but not replace that bumper sticker with “Science of the Gaps.”
Most unlikely that you’d reconsider. Since your historical revisionism has it that while it was the right decision, it was for a putatively bad reasoning. Far from the case.
However, long story short here is that this was not a matter of throwing out cards getting luck in some Vegas craps table. The issue–which is linked only if you care to see what Leon Kass has to say (and he’s agnostic) was that the moral boundry is not so simple as appeasing right wingers–of whom you think Haggee among others are just as liable to throw bombs as the Iran’s little Adolf or Red China. Most unlikely.
Again–and again I sayeth again: You might check out what science writer Michael Fumento has penned on this. And unlike the Bush detractors, he does not typically dip his pen in some much bile before writing. That’s what I meant by abusive. Bush is surely far from perfect on many things, but it was a good heads up to see where you stand on other things. Interesting that certain ideologies can be assumed from secularists. Proving my point without much more input from here.
October 15, 2008 @ 1:58 pmOh wait.
PAUL:
I SEE!
You’re talking about “anthropomorphism” regarding
my Lewis-styled “human aspirations” mode of
reasoning about God, right?
Fair enough.
But that’s just one of many approaches. And is not meant to be any kind of direct proof on ultimate origins.
It deals logically though, not in the format of
“God would do X” (though some areas of Scripture
do indicate God has emotions and actions SIMILAR
to humans, but perfected), but rather mankind’s yearning.
So this is from the other side. You might argue this is
a FORM of anthropomorphism, except the attribute
we are attributing is a problem solved that must
move beyond man himself and onto something
only God could ultimately provide.
This is extrapolation–and is the same
technique used by Seth Shostack, for example,
in guessing that since life is on earth, earth is a planet,
planets OUTSIDE the solar system abound (though the
ones we know are lifeless), thus at some point we’ll
run into aliens of some type.
He calls his version “science.”
I would say my version, for the moment, is “fair”
based on human aspirations. It does not prove
God, but does demonstrate that its possible that
the homing device, or the seeking, is a RATIONAL
move for some humans.
From my life, experience, and studies, I certainly have no faith in other people
October 15, 2008 @ 2:13 pmPaul:
Last good word from me:
I take it then you’ll pass along this charming “freedom for all” sentiment to Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, the National Education Association’s chief directorship, and everyone else in the Sangerian tradition who vow to use public education (primarily) and the mass media (secondarily), to make sure your take on this is nixed. These men and most of their cohorts in education (or, like Sam Harris, seeking to influence education, the Verboten of which is de facto the rule in places like Germany) think religioun should be vanquished.
Period.
October 15, 2008 @ 3:03 pmThe secularized answer partly lies in the culture created from what is generally a selfish, materialist, atomized version of self that disregards the social consequences of these kinds of actions.
But honing in on this atomized indiidualism and encrouaging easy abortion as the backup valve for promiscuity and celebrating sexual urges as primal over higher responsibilities, the ironic result in the West is that by default, women will end up in a society that assures no choice at all.
Secularism is happy-headed nothingness and goes to nothing but hedonism. Its final days will play out against a more culturally confident and resurgent Islam on the one hand that assures no female rights, and on the other hand a moribund, non-fertile society steeped in sumptious handouts that can no longer be affored when the population halves every generation.
Sorry. Rules of the math.
October 15, 2008 @ 3:09 pmWakefield, I’m afraid that with all your obscure references, I didn’t understand much of those last two posts.
As for anthropomorphism: I believe that what most people understand as “god” is actually a combination of the some exotic, and poorly understood brain functioning, and a very common process of looking at what we don’t understand and projecting our own psychology onto it. This is a process known as anthropomorphism. In other words, you are taking a look at the fact that you don’t know how the universe got here, and projecting YOUSELF into that uncertainty, and then calling that “God.” Clearly this is what the Jew’s did in the bible, and it may even have been what Jesus was doing when he said “I and the father or one.”
All I am saying is that since we don’t know what caused the universe, any moral arguement about “the creator of the universe” is a non-starter for what counstitutes morality.
Here is how it works in simple logic:
A) You cannot prove there is a god
B) You cannot prove that you know what god wants if there is a god to begin with.
Therefore
C) Any arguement that starts with “God want’s” is a bullshit arguement.
Now I noticed that you referenced scripture there. That’s nice. Please note that since I do not view the scripture as anything other than bronze-age mythology, I am not prone to be impressed with arguements from scripture. This is not to say that there is nothing of value in scripture, it is only to say that I do not view scripture as a meaningful authority.
So if you want to use scripture to make an arguement, then, please, back it up with actual logic.
Now all that said, if you have an experience of god that is different than what I am describing, please do your best to explain that to me. As I said, I really am curious about such things.
I would like to note that every single “expert” you have referenced in the last two posts has had a christian fundimentalist credential. Part of the reason I am posting on this site is because I think it’s good to get outside of the “athiest echo chamber” from time to time. I suggest that it might be a good idea to try posting on an athiest website and see what sorts of ideas you’ll kick around. There is clearly also a “christian echo chamber” going on over here too.
For one thing, I notice that folks on this website love to misrepresent and vilify Richard Dawkins. He actually seems like a pretty nice guy to me, but then I don’t find his arguements “strident and shrill.” Instead, I find them corageously honest. But hey, that’s an athiest point of view.
One warning – athiests tend to not be as polite as Christians. Part of that is culture and part of that is being fed up with nonsense, but I’m sure you can find some intelligent folks to argue with too.
You cut me to the quick sir. Please see the opening of my last post.
Leon Kass – Per Wikipedia – A bush appointee who stacked the ESC panel with “right to lifers.” Doesn’t sound to agnostic to me.
Peter Kreeft – Per Wikipedia – A Catholic apologist
Michael Fumento – Per Wikipeida – Conservative scinece reporter with a “12 week degree” in writing.
See, I get around this problem, but accepting that there actually is a 100% correct answer to the question “how did the universe come to exist”
Drumroll:
I don’t know
By accepting my ignorance, I get can rest warm in the knowledge that I have a firm grip on the reality of the situation. There are LOTS of things I don’t know. This happens to be one of them. I don’t need to invent a creator deity to look in the mirror or sleep well at night. “I don’t know” is not only honest, it is also powerful, because the beginning of all learning starts with “I don’t know.”
One of the things that I hate about religion is that it gives false answers where the truth is “I don’t know,” and in doing so, it promotes ignorance in the world.
When scientist posit wierd exotic ideas like “the universe was created backwards by concious thought.” They are engaged in speculation. It is not intended to be viewed as “science” indeed. There the primary value of these exotic ideas is that they give scientists ideas for experaments, most of which will show the idea to be worthless. But that’s not the point. Creative thinking is the soil that scientific theory grows from. Evidence is the pruning sheers. If an idea is untestable it is not science.
Many of the ideas of christianity ARE testable (like the literal truth of the story of Genesis for example), and many christians go through all kinds of intelectual contortionism in order to refute or cherry pick the evidence that shows that Genesis NEVER HAPPENED. This is a childish attempt to cling to ignorance. And I hate it.
This is a very different process than the intellectual games that scientists play with the data. They know they are probably wrong. That’s why it’s called speculation. Biblical literalists can’t admit that they are wrong, and so they lie to themselves and use politics and money to try to bury the truth.
A truely imorral act.
October 15, 2008 @ 3:32 pmYou might like to point that out, no doubt, but since it is blatantly false it is of no avail. Unless perhaps even on the SIDElines of an issue, even a mere passing glance reference to God is “fundamentalistm”, and in that case that would not even apply to the writings of Fumento.
I think you need to leave the Wiki people alone, and read the material first. Cheating is so unbecoming. Talk about immoral. Is this the new standard then?Since Wiki has basically butchered Fumento’s stuff and is far from accurate (seeing that he’s written for over 20 years and has a clean track record against his most ardent detractors), they have an agenda somewhat apart from the truth. Certainly Fumento can’t be lumped in with fundamentalism.
What was that you said about “honest” research?
Did I merely imagine that you said that?
As per the other two, you might want to read the material before taking the Wiki word. Which is not the Oracle of Delphi.
You might be surprised at just how many “just so” speculation stories that nowadays hail from Science of the Gaps fit this description so well.
I know. And this does not bode well either for their claims at being human-oriented, or the heady ideas about the future. Perhaps in this case they can stake their case with the scions of Abu Zarquawi.
As to Dawkins, his quotations–along with those of Daniel Dennett and Harris and Christopher Hitchens (now keep in mind you need to move beyond Wiki, so this is a rough moment, I realize..) are readily available. They DO in point of fact wish to see an OUTLAWING of religious teaching/belief/training, etc., though in fairness they backpeddle to declare this is only for the younger minds. Its not just a matter of being “not nice.” Or “frustrated.” If that were so he’d have his most strident attacks equally across the board on the other things he considers bad for mankind. But that road he takes not. Hitchens is the same way, only more of a horse’s ass, and while his writing style is glorious on some topics, he never does his homework on Church-Science relations. Dawkins and Harris use antrhopomorphosized arguments and blend these into sanctamonious, smarmy, PC bites that smack more of current fads in politics than reality. Daniel Dennett does not do this so much, but still has the penchent for saying Christianity should be outlawed. Though to his credit he DOES point out that in his Universal Acid test of truth, he states unequivocally that along with other fictions, mind and soul and honor and “morals” are also victimized by materialism. Yet opposed to this are the “moralists” (stem cells, et al) like yourself who very well take up such claims somehow.
I appreciate HIS honesty on the results of materialist thinking.
So Dawky is not a prescription for domestic tranquility.
Whose truth? The “truth” on ESCs and your historical revisionism, which John and I just shot out of the sky? Or perhaps you refer to my very unpleasant but real-world easy-to-make association with secularists and their accompanying ideology?
Yeah—but that’s more than fair. And I’m more than happy to point out that if the “truth” is what is supposedly beheld by people claiming that mantle, then their associations and superstitions and deadly dialectic materialist arguments that go hand in hand with these “progressive” notions should be aired out.
For my part I’ve had encounters aplenty with the perpetually and perinneally angry keybangers at many of these athiest sites. I’ve done my time and paid my dues. So if you truly want to lurk around, and ask questions, you have but to link and look.
That’s all I can do from here. So if you’re truly interested, and plan to move beyond teenybopper flaming and investigate, the ball’s in your court.
October 15, 2008 @ 4:08 pmSpeculation to the Nth power, at best. Such as when Dr. Dean Adel blames “homophobia” on “projection” that VAST majorities of American Males are closet gays. Or when Dutch authorities not-so-wisely (for their own safety) tell Muslim youths who “hate” gays pretty much the same thing.
I love. Not only are we told what TO believe by the Secular Left, we’re told what we ALREADY and ACTUALLY believe, or what the alleged causal foundation is.
As both CS Lewis and his contemporaties like Victor Reppert pointed out, this very materialist notion that all notions are devoid of free will and are mere “unknown” cognates of chemical transactions only, tends to nullify the validity of all thought.
It cuts both ways. This kind of “projection” analysis and Action/Reaction dichotomy is why BF Skinner said the very term mind is also, therefore, “pre-science.”
Interesting idea. Too bad if he’s right, all propositions can be held to be equally invalid or valid.
October 15, 2008 @ 4:21 pmWakefield, I often enjoy your posts, but I’m coming to the conclusion that you’d be easier to listen to than to read.
That’s one sentence! That’s why I sometimes get a dazed expression reading some of your longer posts.
Paul
Looked at from a purely scientific point of view, without any belief in a creator, I don’t think that point can be made to your satisfaction. If you accept the concept of a creator God, then the idea that life is a gift from Him makes the argument much easier.
You want personal experiences of God, but my experience is that sharing those things with atheists opens one up to a whole lot of ridicule. I’ll go out on a limb slightly with you, though. A few years back, when I was already a Christian having just accepted that I wasn’t going to be able to have proof before having faith, some good friends of mine had a baby. They had been through a really tough time – bereavements etc – and then their very young baby became critically ill and things just started to go badly wrong. Machinery, bureaucracy, incompetence all seemed to be ganging up on the little guy and his chances didn’t look good. I prayed about that like I’ve never prayed about anything, and then I heard a voice. The voice told me some highly unlikely good news, that I at a subconscious level could have no way of knowing, but that turned out to be true. The voice referred to itself in the first person, and basically told me to quit worrying because he(it?) was there and they had everything they could need. The best way I can describe the voice would be a thought in my head that wasn’t my own. When I, hesitantly, returned to the same petition prayer a few moments later, the voice rebuked me. Everything the voice told me turned out to be completely true, the boy is now doing very well at school.
You can take that as proof that I am mad, you can dismiss it any way you want, but if you want personal experiences of God, that is the best I have to offer. I have never experienced anything quite like that before or, much to my own frustration, since.
October 16, 2008 @ 1:34 amKeith – that was beautiful.
October 16, 2008 @ 3:53 amKeith sometimes I get ahead of myself. So sorry about that.
You said, in part:
Keith, I think if Paul wants to have “science” make some absolutist statement based on hard evidence he is barking up the wrong tree. And no one here can provide that and in the current cultural environment, for better or for worse, will not even allow that.
A giant thumb could emerge from the morning sky and thump me on the head for odd sentences and Paul on the head for non-belief, and he and his cohorts and a cadre of scientists would simply say this is nothing more than an elaborate magic sleight of hand by space aliens. This is not necessarily a negative. There are many areas of life from observation and philsophical insight that cannot be gelled into some statement that passes scientific muster. Hume had this take–all else that is not “reduced” to mathematical relations and a causal chain agreed upon by sciene should be “committed to the flames.” But there are other forms of truth: Philosophical, propositional, moral, cultural, and others. None of which are amenable to “science” as is commonly understood.
The answer, like the foregoing about morals, cannot and will probably never bill distilled into a neat box that satisfies everyone across cultural lines.
I think John and I agree to the extent that while some research programs and scientific insights might point to a Creator, ultimately the retort to this will always be “the universe simply is. period. end of line,” and in any case like the New Hampshire guys say to tourists, “you can’t get there from here” when it comes to “finding” God from Science.
Philosopher of science Michael Ruse stated it best, to his credit:
The “rules” of the house of science, for better or worse, dictate that certain assumptions can never be part of a scientific statement. He even followed up to say that while these rules might seem arbitrary and leave out vast swaths of knowledge, they are the rules nontheless. Now in a way I agree and yet disagree. I agree that the Sisyphusian standards NEED to be stringent, and not allow what are considered “supernatural” elements, as this would sidestep (or could) rigorous investigation methods. But is everything seen by such investigation? No.
I disagree that everything could be, since philosophers typically use many a-priori assumptions and starting points about theirs and science’s observations. Science is based on observations, but as Paul K. Feyerebend asked, “how do ‘facts of the matter’ decide on their own interpretations?”
They can’t, and the interpretation of the world is done by mental constructs ultimately based on philosophical insights from Western notions about logic. Ironically, notions pulled in no small part from Medeival Christian philosophy, in fact.
http://jameshannam.com/
Like Nancy Pearcy states in The Soul Of Science, it was Christian philosophy about a higher power than the animistic ideas of the primitives that helped usher in the Age of Reason and chased the demons away and established the notion of the Universe with Order as Created. And that this was logical conclusion from Scripture.
So in THIS sense I disagree that philosophy in general (or Christian philosophy in particular) are invalid paths to knowledge, since they have lines of descent that offer the logical a-priori starting points for ALL discussions about observation and thus science.
October 16, 2008 @ 7:13 amPaul,
Paul, it’s a fair question. I’ll try to answer it.
Christianity does (and always has) hold to the “sanctity” of life. This has taken many forms over the last two thousand years. For instance, starting in the 1st century Christians opposed the practice of “exposure” or abandoning infants outdoors as cruel. Unfortunately, this was a common occurrence in 1st century Rome. They rejected abortion for the same reason. Christians also refused to attend gladiatorial games, which needless to say were extremely popular, because they devalued human life.
So the first part of my answer is that drawing a line in the sand about the sanctity of life is, in many cases, going to lead people to resist and object to human suffering, not promote or extend it.
The specific context of your question involves stem cell research, which has only existed for a dozen years or so as a real possibility. As I’ve tried to demonstrate above (somewhere) the President wrestled with this, taking advice from people on all sides of the issue. In the end he issued a compromise verdict. He would not prevent such research from taking place and, in cases where “cell lines” had already been established would allow these to go forward with federal help. However, he would not devote tax money to funding new cell lines, leaving this to private groups and states.
So, contrary to something you said earlier, private funding was not just a compensation for an ill-made decision. On the contrary, the wisdom of the decision was that it specifically allowed for research to go forward by other means, only excepting federal funds. It was part of the President’s plan from the outset and, as we’ve seen, it worked far better than even he might have hoped. Research was funded by states and privately (to no avail in the case of ESCR) and just a few years later advances in science have rendered the issue moot. The key point is this: there is simply no evidence that anyone suffered as a result of this decision.
Why does it matter? Because a human embryo is not just a “clump of cells” as you suggest. Or rather, it is that but it’s also so much more than that. A hangnail is a clump of cells. I would like to think that you could see the difference between this and a human being in embryonic form. And, frankly, if it were really just a clump of cells, we wouldn’t be having this argument at all. The fact is, the unique potential of these cells is what makes them so valuable to science.
Now, I’m not someone who would say there’s no qualitative difference between a blastocyst and a newborn. There is a difference. However, here is where I think you’ve missed the mark. If we can agree that its unique potential makes this nascent life valuable (for potential though utterly unrealized cures) why can’t we also admit this potential life has value beyond its value as a research tool? Perhaps this individual could grow up to become a great scientist or businessman. The fact is, we don’t know. We’re dealing with potential value in both cases. The potential value of a cure which does not exist (and may never be realized) vs. the potential value of a human being and their lifetime of contributions to society.
And if this comparison of possible futures is valid (and I’m saying it is) then it needs to be kept in mind even in cases where an embryo is going to be destroyed. Admittedly, this is a more tenuous argument, but I believe once we’ve created a market for something, we’ll find suppliers appear all around us. The story I linked to earlier about a company called EmCell is a good example. It’s a short step from using embryos for experimentation to creating embryos for experimentation.
So, in short, I’m saying this:
1) Holding to the sanctity of life prevents far, far more suffering than it causes.
October 16, 2008 @ 9:23 am2) In cases where the two seem at odds (such as ESCR) no actual suffering can be attributed to the stem cell decision we’ve discussed and even utterly secular scientists and experts in the field believe there is a weighty moral issue at hand which needs to be taken into account.
3) Finally, if we’re going to talk about the potential value of embryos to science we need to also talk about their potential value to society (in the form of productive adults) and to their own future selves, friends and family.
4) There is a slippery slope here which some companies have already slid down. As a matter of public policy, it makes sense to avoid the slope entirely.
Ok, a lot of material to respond to, so this will be a long post.
First I would like to just say that I am really loving this discussion. Thanks guys.
Second, I would like to address what I consider a “scolding” by Wakefield. I feel that it is not only unjust, but it is also lazy.
Wakefield said:
Hmm… I might have made an ill-informed jugement, or maybe not (my ideas of what constitutes a fundamentalist are probably very different than yours). That said, I would like to ask that if you want to use the words of someone else to support your position, please give me more to work on than just the author’s name. Please do not expect me to sift through – as you put it – 20 years of authorship to find the position that supports you.
Dude, who is “they?” We are talking about Wikipedia here. EVERYONE can post on that thing. If you don’t like what it says, change it! Don’t blame some mythical “them” for the fact that many people don’t agree with your impression of this author.
Which material is that? Do you really think that just by giving me a name to go on, I can find the specific reference you are referring to? Do you really think that I have enough time on my hands? Please refrain from blaming me for the consequence of your poor referencing practices.
Ok, so having addressed that little issue, I move on.
Not only do I agree with this statement, but I am quite proud of some of my own rather ingenious “Just So” explanations that I have cooked up myself about the nature of human sexuality and the evolutionary value of religious experience. Of course I know they are not science, but they are still fun ideas to play around with. I’m not quite sure why you seem to consider this a bad thing. Surely intellectually satisfying explanations for the natural world are not “bad” in any sense, even if they can’t be proven? So long as I don’t get carried away and lose sight of the fact that I am speculating, where is the harm?
What, so all atheists are terrorists murderers now? Would you care to explain this highly insulting remark?
Ok, so Wakefield, I believe you are harboring extremely distorted views of the “4 horsemen of atheism” and of atheists in general.
Let me try to set you straight:
First, all four of them agree on the principal that since the bible is most definitely NOT a science text book, and simply wrong about a lot of facts about the world, it should NOT be taught in a science class. This is largely something that most atheists, most agnostics and a lot of Christians (including the Pope, I think) and Jews agree on. I can’t speak for Muslims or Hindu’s on this issue, but I do know that the Dali Llama has said that if science contradicts the Dharma, then one should accept the findings of science and not the Dharma. So Buddhism is on board with this one also.
Dawkins – Surely the most strident of the bunch. Dawkins holds that all religion is nonsense and that theology should be dis-assembled from adult education institutions (colleges) and re-defined as humanities classes. He has never advocated making religion illegal, but (like me) he feels that we should talk about the claims of religions and challenge them where they fail to meet the standards of evidence based reasoning. Does a simply fantastic job of explaining the mechanics of evolution. In fact this is what earned him his prominence, not his anti-religious rhetoric. Dawkins promotes the idea that certain aspects of religious indoctrination should be viewed as a kind of child abuse. Specifically these include the idea of hell (which causes emotional suffering), and the idea that children should be labeled as belonging to a religion long before they can understand the religion. I am not aware of him advocating any legal measures be taken toward these ends, and it’s a good thing too, since such a law would be un-enforceable.
Sam Harris – Believes that while all religious traditions hold some nonsense they also hold some wisdom. He decries the danger of having bronze-age ideologies armed with modern weapons. While he doesn’t believe in the dogma of any of the Abrahamic faiths, he recognizes that spiritual experience is a human universal, and he considers this an important topic of study. He feels (and I agree with him) that Buddhist teachings have a lot to offer to this regard.
Christopher Hitchens – Believes religion poisons everything. Sort of. He allowed his publicist to title his book that way and then went on to defend the title. Eloquently. Christopher has little of substance to add over what the other 3 offer, but he is so darn good with words and so darn willing to offend, that I find him extremely entertaining to listen to. The importance of his work is that he encourages other atheists to stand up and speak out against religious nonsense wherever we find it. He is a FIERCE defender of civil liberties, especially the right to free speech, but including the right to freedom of religion.
Daniel Dennette – While Dawkins does a better job of explaining evolution, Dennett understands the social and philosophical implications of the theories better than the other 3. He supports religious education for all children, and believes that all children should be required to take a differential religion class, in much the same way that all children are required to take social studies and math classes.
Bottom line – NONE of the “4 horsemen” advocate curtailing religious rights as a matter of law. All of them support the idea that religion needs to get over the idea that it should hold some sort of privileged place in society. The fact that you consider an idea as sacred should not make it immune to public discussion or refutation. This is not about taking away your rights, it’s about asserting my freedom of speech.
While I have read each of these authors extensively, I have not read everything that they have written, so if you know something that I don’t know, please post a quote and a reference to that quote. But these are the facts as I know them.
Judging by your long paragraph on each of these authors, I get the impression that you have a lot of passionate feelings about the stuff they have to say. Are you sure that your passion is not distorting your understanding of their message? For example:
What has Dawkins EVER said that can be viewed as marital advice?
Well, I’m not aware of you and John shooting any of my arguments “out of the sky.” John did give me a reference that showed that Bush did employ medical ethicists to make his stem-cell decision. I don’t agree with that decision, but I’m man enough to admit it when I stand corrected. The morality of holding life as an absolute standard of morality is not something we have settled yet though.
No, the truth I am referring to here is the truth of evolution. There is a large minority of Christians who cannot accept that we are descended from apes, and that we are in fact a species of ape. While they can admit the bible is wrong about the idea that the sun revolves around the earth (mostly they just ignore this inconvenient example of biblical error) they wish to cling to the story of Genesis when it comes to human origins. They conflate evolution with immorality, and try to argue that you can’t have morality with-out god. They also try to have creationism taught in the science class as a violation of the establishment clause of the constitution. They cook up non-scientific “theories” like intelligent design as well-funded stealth campaigns to get creationism taught in biology class.
In short they can’t handle the truth, and instead of sucking it up and living with the fact that the bible is wrong, they try to use politics and money to rewrite science and sell the idea that evidence just doesn’t matter, or that it’s not really evidence. That’s the “truth” I am speaking of.
A further point-You really need to get this simple idea: “Atheist” and “Secularist” are not ideologies. They are positions of non-belief.
Atheism – non-belief in a deity. There are atheist Buddhists and atheist Jews. There are atheists who consider themselves rationalists (Like me) and there are atheists who just don’t give a fig about philosophy or god or anything. They just don’t happen to believe in things they can’t see (some people have no imagination). Atheism is no more an “ideology” than is “A-bigfootistism”
Secular – This is any, ANY social institution that doesn’t have anything to do with religion. When your church decides to host a coffee shop on the premises, this is a secular function of the church. Math classes are secular. Police stations are secular (or they are supposed to be). Secular just means, “not religious.”
What you are arguing against is rationalism, or possibly humanism. I hope that helps.
Well, you seems to be bringing up the kitchen sink here. Hey, there are few works in the world that are more speculated about than the bible. I’m not offering this idea as some kind of “truth” about what Jesus meant. I’m just offering it as an idea that makes sense of what Jesus said in a way that’s consistent with my experience.
John Lennon said it best: “I am He, as you are He, as you are me and we are all together.
coo coo cachoo. ;-)
If you say so. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I doubt it. Frankly, I get the impression that a lot of the anger in your last couple of posts is born out of fear, not love. I think you are afraid that if you are not a special creation of a divine monarch, then you are immoral. Of course I don’t know you, so please forgive me if I’m off the mark. Still, this is a common fear that many Christians hold (as I have seen again and again), and it is a natural consequence of the blasphemous doctrine known as original sin.
You go on to talk about free will. I’m not sure what free will has to do with all of this, but since I don’t know if we have free will or not, I’m not really interested in arguing it. I find that if I am going to argue morality, it is best to simply assume that we do have free will, and go from there.
Keith:
Awesome post, thanks for sharing. I appreciate your trust and courage, given your experience with other atheists. I’m glad the little guy came through it OK.
Perhaps, but easier arguments are not necessarily more valid than difficult ones. Also, easy morality is no reason to believe in a creator god.
Wakefield:
Two points:
1) Science doesn’t make absolutist claims. All scientific knowledge is provisional (although some is so well established that it might as well be dogma – like the earth revolving around the sun). No, for absolutist claims you need to turn to religion. In fact the biggest virtue that science has over religion is its relationship with uncertainty. Some religious traditions (including Christina traditions) also have pretty good relationships with uncertainty as well, but that’s a whole other thread.
2) Science has some amazing things to say about morality, mostly in the field of psychology. That said, it doesn’t tell us what SHOULD be moral. That is an ever-changing target that we are forever struggling to meet.
There is a lot that I think is important in that last sentence. It is ever-changing, like the universe that we live in, and we are forever struggling to meet it, like the fundamentally moral beings that we humans are. As society progresses we get more moral. This is evident in the fact that people are less violent now than we have ever been in the past (per capita) and that we have abolished slavery, cured diseases etc. etc. That said, philosophy is the discipline that answers the should questions, not science.
This is one of the reasons that I’m not a big fan of Christianity. While it does adjust its moral standards with the times, it tends to hold to dogmatic and irrational positions that create human suffering. For example, teaching people to “be fruitful and multiply” is simply irresponsible in a world as overburdened as ours is. Educating against anti-cervical cancer vaccine and condom use in Africa are down-right hideous.
I agree with this statement. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I should forsake my skepticism or adopt the ignorance of “faith.”
John, It’s getting late, and I’ll have to respond to you later.
Thanks for hanging in there, I know this was a long post!
October 17, 2008 @ 1:59 amPaul,
you are not like other atheists I have had discussions with. That’s a compliment, by the way. Thank you for your thorough post, I’m enjoying this debate, mostly as a spectator.
No, absolutely right on both points. I think my point was that there is always going to be a next thing that can’t be proved to your satisfaction. I don’t consider myself equipped to address this question anywhere near as well as John has done, but I do have experience of constantly putting up things I needed an answer to before I would have faith in God. You can’t ever satisfy your own need for answers.
As for easy morality – there is no such thing, surely? In addition, a Christians morality should be formed by their faith, not the reason for it.
Much of this debate is a level or so above me, so I’ll duck out of it until such time as there seems to be something I can add. Thank you for your kind words (and yours, too Carol).
October 17, 2008 @ 2:03 pmKeith:
This is not factually accurate. Or at least it’s not depending on how you define Christianity. Obviously the crusades and the inquisition are historical examples of failing to hold life sacred. Also, Christianity is such a huge religion, that it’s easy to imagine some modern sects emphasizing other values, and ignoring the sanctity of life as cannon.
In addition it’s hard to really argue that the sanctity of life is being well served as a value when the Vatican continues to denounce condom use as HIV prevention in Africa.
Also, the sanctity of life is hardly present in your mythology. The death of Jesus is basically a human sacrifice. What kind of god requires human sacrifice in order to forgive his followers? This looks more like a death cult than a life cult to me. Heck, even your primary icon is the dying god.
I’m sorry, but “sanctity of life” doesn’t really look like it’s that high on your cultural agenda, when you really break things down.
I see that you want to give Bush credit for the positive consequences of his actions. I still think he got lucky, but I’ll stipulate this point. None of this justifies the philosophical moral stance that says that the sanctity of life is a moral absolute. It is only an example of the application of a moral absolute that happened to turn out well.
I can easily find situations where the values of the sanctity of life yields negative consequences. For example, in the book “Freakanomics” Levitt and Dubner show that strict anti-abortion laws result in more poverty, and therefore more crime. Similarly there have been studies that show that the more religious (i.e. Christian) an industrialized nation is, the higher its rates of abortion, teen pregnancy, poverty, murder, rape etc. and the lower its life expectancy. Now this last is a correlation study, and correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does put the lie on the notion that the more Christian a culture (i.e. the stronger the “culture of life”) the better and more moral that culture is.
So the consequences of the sanctity of life as moral absolute doesn’t really stand as an argument for this position.
I’m sorry, but I find this argument hard to swallow. Surely the sanctity of life can be ONE of the variables in making a moral calculus, without giving it the power to trump all other considerations.
I have a friend who’s aunt had cancer and she suffered terribly for years. By terribly, I mean that the torture of Jesus of Nazereth might be compared with a bad weekend for her. THAT’s how much pain she was in before she died. Death was a release for her. You can see that in such cases the moral absolutes of the “sanctity of life” devalues the role of both human judgment and compassion.
Again, this doesn’t show that “sanctity of life” is a moral absolute. I don’t think anyone argues that it should not be held in consideration of making moral and ethical decisions, but you have not demonstrated that this single issue should trump all other considerations. What’s going to happen the next time we have a technological breakthrough that offends this sensibility?
In the case of stem cells, the potential value of the cells is zero. Given that the blastocyst in question is going to be destroyed, it has exactly NO potential for anything other than a research project. This argument is moot.
Also, you are weighing the potential value of a clump of cells against the actual value of thousands of real, living breathing human beings. You are also weighing it against the real suffering of those same people and their families. Also, it may be possible to grow a baby AND have stem cell research (or whatever technology) so, you can have your cake and eat it too. I’m sorry, but I don’t think this holds water.
Every moral dilemma has a slippery slope attached to it. That’s why it’s a moral dilemma. The solution to this is not to ban the situation. The solution is to create a public discussion about it, and to create transparent institutions that allow people to continually vet the moral consequences of this dilemma.
This is the trouble with moral absolutes – life is just not that simple. Look at Moses. He comes down the mountain with “thou shalt not kill (or murder)” and then he commences to order a genocidal attack on his enemies. Even the guys who write the moral absolutes don’t live by them!
Here is what I think is really going on here:
Our basic survival strategy as a species is our brain. In other words, we filled an evolutionary niche that allowed us to make our way in the world by thinking.
One of the consequences of this is that we need heads that are very big. In fact they are so big that they cannot fit through a woman’s pelvis if fully developed.
As a result of this we are born as helpless little babies. As a result of THAT, we developed several psychological coping mechanisms, including:
1) An instinct to protect the innocent – babies create strong emotional responses of care-giving and protectiveness in us – This has high survival value for our DNA.
2) An instinct to obey authority – as children we bond to adults and we learn the ways of the world from them. As such we tend to obey, and we tend to believe what they tell us.
3) A desire to avoid causing harm to others – especially direct harm – studies have shown that people have a much stronger response and slower reaction time when asked to cause harm directly as opposed to indirectly.
4) A desire for fairness – This helps us trade resources with some reliability, and get along within our community. It may also be why we can do math.
5) A desire for community – We need community to survive – we are a highly social animal. This is a natural outgrowth of our long infancy.
6) A desire for purity – we don’t like things that are “icky” like rotting meat and anal sex. This emotional response evolved to help protect us from disease.
I am not pulling these moral intuitions out of a hat. All of them were shown experimentally by a guy named Hieght. They exist across cultures and across religions. So, you can see, human beings are moral, with or without god. How these intuitions play themselves out in the culture depends on the culture and the circumstances.
Of course right alongside these moral intuitions we have instinctual drives to be self-serving, to acquire resources and status, and to reproduce. This is all the explanation you need for what you Christians call “original sin,” or “evil.”
So let me give you a brutal example of all of this in action:
Leaving a baby on a hill to die may be anathema to you and me, but to a starving 3rd world family, it is a way of preventing the (long term) suffering of the child, and preventing the suffering of the parent who might otherwise kill the child directly (and be traumatized by doing so), and preventing the suffering of the starving family who cannot feed one more person. It’s ugly, but it is still a moral decision from within the framework of the situation. You may disagree with the morality of it, but it is still a decision based on moral principals – in this case the principal of avoiding suffering, and preserving the lives that you can. Note that I would not hold up avoiding suffering as a moral absolute, I am just saying that the person who leaves the baby on the hill to die is applying moral reasoning to a moral dilemma and doing the best he/she knows how.
The fact that the parent IS attached to the baby and the fact that he/she does have the instinct that says protect the child is what creates the psychological and emotional turmoil that goes into making the decision.
Moving on from that example, we come to Christianity. Christianity is a social phenomenon. That is to say, it is a religion (a social institution) and a belief system. It is a way of interpreting and organizing experience in order to make sense of the world. You guys use it to form your identity and inform your morality. However, it’s not just a simple cut and paste belief system. In the process of internalizing the ideology of Christianity, you guys interact with the dogma and mythology of the religion and actively incorporate it into your sense of self. Then when you are faced with a moral dilemma, you access these teachings in order to figure out what to do. If there is no teaching that applies, then you use the principals of the doctrine to justify your position, and THEN you decide that this decision on YOUR PART is “god’s will”
Let me show you how this works with stem-cell research:
1) You sit down in front of a priest who has decided to talk about this issue. Probably without this step, you wouldn’t give ESC a second thought. You listen to what he says because you are programmed by evolution to believe in and obey authority, and what authority could be higher than god’s mouth piece. He coaches you through the following emotional sequence:
a. Stem cell research involves growing human cells in Petri dishes. Let’s face it. This is icky. Therefore it violates your moral intuition of purity.
b. You have perfectly good frontal lobes – so there ain’t nothing wrong with your imagination. This allows you to imagine little babies that don’t exist, but that COULD exist if you grew what was living in those Petri dishes.
c. Having imagined these non-existent babies, your emotional program that says “protect and defend babies” get’s activated, and you get all emotionally excited about the situation.
2) The priest tells you that your emotional response is “the will of god” and that it violates a moral absolute called “the sanctity of life.”
3) You lean on your political representatives to ban stem-cell research.
Note that what doesn’t happen here is that at no point are you challenged in any of your assumptions about the matter. You are not challenged in your assumptions that the priest is a valid authority to follow or that he has any idea what he is talking about. You are not challenged in the idea that the icky-ness of medicine is bad. You are not challenged in the fact that the babies you are defending exist only in your imagination.
What you get out of this is the gratification of knowing that you are “on the moral high ground” and what the priest gets out of this the same things that you get, and the good feeling of ministering his flock. He also gets money, political power and access to sex partners. What society gets out of this is suffering and ignorance.
The whole point I am working toward here is this: FIRST, you have an emotionally driven moral response, AND THEN you use your religion to justify it. When pressed, instead of actually giving a well thought-out moral argument, you hide behind “sanctity of life” as if that is an answer to anything. You then move into the political sphere and shut down all argument on the matter because “It’s my faith position, and I’m a ‘values voter.”
It’s hard not to have contempt for this psychology, because it takes the most complex moral issues of our time and boils them down into talking points which have the effect of stifling conversation. In addition, I watch you guys get behind moralizing demagogues who are anti-life, anti-American, and anti-compassion with a glazed look in your eye and your checkbooks in hand, ready to give “to Jesus.” GAHHH! It’s infuriating.
Yesterday I listened to Pastor Hagee give a sermon about how it’s the end times and won’t it be great when we have a nuclear Armageddon.
“Sanctity of life” my ass.
October 18, 2008 @ 1:52 pmPaul, I must admit to not having the time to read this whole post so far, but I’m assuming it was intended to be addressed to John, is that right? I’m kinda tied up discussing Europe with Wakefield over on another thread, pursuing the old ‘evidence’ line.
October 18, 2008 @ 2:33 pmI’ll address some of what Paul has said, but in picking the battle lines will have to do a combo of just some of these moral statement claims “as evolved” and leave alone the stem cell mess for now.
More later.
–SWT
October 18, 2008 @ 2:41 pmThe foregoing is all “utilitarianism”–nothing more. Nothing less. It means nothing but survival mechanism and emotion, and to this end means only “that which we think is conducive to make us feel better or survive, or a combo of both.”
One of the world’s great parodies of this line of thinking, where a combo of science and mushy sentimentalism could be turned into something ugly based on “needs” of society was penned by Jonathan Swift in his Modest Proposal of using hot, fresh meat from Irish children to feed Ireland in a time of great need and hunger. Based on the findings of the time, including the meat processing capabilities and the relative costs involved, Swift found in tongue and cheek fashion that rather than piddle with potatoes and other crops and staples that failed in the weather or rotted, human meat was highly palatable as well as easy to harvest and produce and shipped well. Further, a biologist friend of mine confirmed that human flesh is probably the most nutritious if you’re going to eat meat, as it contains all the proper proportions of a daily diet the human body needs. Logical enough. Within a few years processing could begin here too for hungry inner city kids and get the FDA stamp of approval once certain procedural issues are handled.
Let’s not let the fuddy-duddys and old-fashioned church ladies get in the way of human progress, shall we? Time to move human progress and gastrological joys forward.
But of course this is not morals. And if morals are either this flimsily based and not grounded on a higher plane, then they are either subjective to the point where it is mere individualistic input or power based, or they are simply (just as likely) based on irrational emotion and therefore non-extant.
Either way, one could easily point out that by the same token the advocacy of stem cell research is no more moral than any other action. Some cultures eat beef with Bernaise sauce for dinner, other find human leg quarters quite tasty.
Who are we to judge any of that?
October 18, 2008 @ 3:01 pmThis Paul guy really knows how to belch out the gibberish. His ignorance concerning the atonement is understandable given that he’s an atheist. The other stuff can only be digested with a fair amount of Maalox. The Scriptures once again prove the substance of what Paul writes, “The fool says in his heart that there is no God”.
As a former agnostic, I can only suggest Paul that you read “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”. The book will present the solid evidence we have for the accurate transmission of the New Testament text to the present. Evidence is also in abundance as to the eyewitness testimony of Scripture relative to Jesus of Nazareth and to His resurrection from the dead. God, in His mercy, has supplied all the evidence that even the harshest critic can review, to illustrate that our faith is a faith founded on solid evidence.
One warning Paul, reading this book may scare you. Unless you possess an IQ below room temperature, you’ll come to the realization that it takes more faith not to believe in Jesus, than to believe in Jesus. This will force you to confront your own sin and how you will respond to Jesus. It’s also unsettling, as I discovered, that these dimwitted Christians were right all along. Up until my conversion, their mere existence provided me with the punch lines to the jokes I used to deride them.
October 18, 2008 @ 4:22 pmNot always–some can be implanted. In a nation where infertility is rampant due to often poorly understood reasons, and while I’m not a big fan of in-vitro pregnancy, it is a possible choice.
The Snowflake babies fit this role. I’m not sure how many there are, but they can in fact be adopted and agencies are available to this goal. Naturally some people find a way to mock the notion of adopting the Snowflakes. As most of the embryos are from white couples, one moron on one site described it as a “ghoulish” carnival freakout for “white kid” Aryan warriors.
Looks like PCness can’t be shaken. It holds like a pitbull.
Nevertheless the Snowflake kids are real.
October 18, 2008 @ 7:12 pmYou’re probably referring to the Gregory S. Paul study, which has been thoroughly taken apart.
You could turn observations like these around quite easily. For example, conservatives and in particular religious conservatives in the West put the money where the mouth is about social compassion.
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200612/CUL20061219a.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDkzYjQ0NTZiYmI1YjM0ZjAyZDhiZjlhZjdhOWYxMj
October 20, 2008 @ 8:45 amPaul:
Was good to see you back in action here. I know I’m late on the draw here.
I’ll cover what I can today, as you’d made statements and asked questions that require more context than I have time for, but here goes:
A further point-You really need to get this simple idea: “Atheist” and “Secularist” are not ideologies. They are positions of non-belief.
*whew*–Let’s tackle the ‘immoral’ part first. Yes, as I and BeastRabban have both pointed out–and men better than us have pointed out–there are connections going all the way back to Nietzsche’s “Death of God” theorem that demonstrate that in a materialist universe where God is dead (or supposed to be), then all morals are extinct, or I should say, become the fashion of the powerful or influential–or subjectively based on culture or feelings(as you pointed out, the “ick” factor—and thus amenable to whatever power is around. And who actually admits to being “evil”? The easy path, according to Nietzsche, was to simply reset the terminology and dispense with such notions anyhow. Instead of pondering “good” vs. “evil”, he simply stated we should move “beyond good and evil.” More evasion. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, this might have sounded clever but was actually the result of a timidity to identify the word “evil” for what it really is. Today by example we have feminist playwrights like Eve Ensler, who say they can’t identify evil and have a “problem” with the term, as it “clouds” the issue. Unless badness happens to a female. (With that kind of nonsensical evasion, we can guess her belief system).
The problem is not that atheism per se, is horrific in and of itself. The “conflation” is not “evolution” with immorality. It is the philosophical stance of atheism which naturally evolution is supposed to support. Else atheists would not mention it. Ultimately ANY idea or notion is just a mental construct so far as we can prove. The notion of “torturing dogs for fun” is only a notion unless actualized. This is true for all philosophy. Even the logic of the Scientific Method. But ideas if followed consistently, have consequences. The problem is that too easily some notions can be easily used to JUSTIFY repulsive kinds of behavior. As have all tyrannies with an official atheistic dogma and ideology. (So yes, this is different from merely being “secular”, which is simply the state’s proper relation to religion per se. But being merely “secular” is different from “secularism”, which is an aggressive anti-religious activism).
Our life outlook dictates how we treat others and our overall behavior. Thus for example, a recently released jewel thief or a pedophile is NOT guaranteed to be untrustworthy to transport your grandma’s antique ring to the bank or drive your daughter to school, but perhaps the best choices would be to handle these situations yourself. The supposed “innate” goodness of atheists does not halt the methodology by which people in power use this as an anvil to hammer away at people’s rights. Radical activists in California used a technicality and almost outlawed homeschooling, for example. They were narrowly defeated and have been itching to force parents to send the kiddies to the public schools in order to steep them in the dogma of socialist power and “gay” studies and other multi-culti mush.
If man is the all and end all, and nothing higher is around to scold or condemn or ultimately punish, then the rather suspect character called “man” is the only holder of codes. Atheism has no measure beyond man, and thus as we see from your comments on moral issues has no moral compass. It is ripe for abuse, or claiming that changing mores dictate government intervention into personal or economic affairs. The record on this is dismal. Always, of course, on behalf of a “better” future! Stalin comes to mind. The easy-listening tyranny evolving in Europe under the EU which controls almost all aspects of life down to minute details, is a tyranny nonetheless and a direct product of the Secular State. As Mark Steyn has demonstrated, this arrangement is doomed to extinction because this coddling of the populace makes them actually disdain greater ideas and settle for hedonism. And in any case, you have ground moral ideas more firmly than saying, like the Vedas does, “that which causes pleasure is virtue, that which causes pain is vice.” It’s not that simple. Going to the dentist, getting fired, getting a flu shot, or having to do rigorous and often thankless work are often unpleasant. They are not usually immoral activities. Yet what makes for happy fun time is not always exactly moral either. The biological “ick” factor may have had its uses in some rough utilitarian since, but this is merely a scientific discovery about what makes us wince. It is not a rooting of morals per se. As you yourself said, science has no ultimate input on moral questions. It can only clarify particulars chains of events. In fact some atheists even think that beyond the moral realm the very notion of “Truth” as you and I know the concept is far from certain. As Stephen Pinker, another infanticide fan, says: “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for ‘Truth’.” That’s an interesting admission. And also wildly contradictory. He’s admitting the Lewis dictum that says that if the human mind was evolved materially via incremental steps over vast time and is designed for bio-fitness only, then ultimately all notions are suspect because survival and “truth” and often opposite things. This means there can never be any certainty, ironically not even about a-priori statements about science and evolution. The only way around this is a possible phenomenon called “emergence”, but that’s another issue and highly questionable at that. So difficult is the issue of the conscious mind being able to discern anything, morals included, as being apart from some canned set of notions, that Daniel Dennett and others take the easy road and just declare the consciousness to be mere cognitive illusion. If this is true, then no firm knowledge is even possible.
With “ideology”, that exact connection of atheist to tyrannical behavior would depend on the level of belief. But usually the connections ARE there in my encounters. Whether you like that or not is beside the point, as the history on this is clear. So congratulations–your comrades have earned it quite well. Top of the class. Like peas in pod, while the pea is NOT the pod, it fits comfortably inside the pod. Leftist ideology and atheism and tyranny are natural fits with one another—allies of convenience. They generally share the same social goals, and have similar leaders. One does not have to see the boot-stomping of Stalin to have tyranny, or sing songs about Mao’s Little Red Book to be repulsive. (A soft core version of this is the hideous Obama Children’s Blueshirt Choir). Once in a blue moon when all the stars are lined up I seem some kind of “right wing” or “conservative” version of ideology from atheists. Ayn Rand comes to mind. And is reviled by other atheists for her insistence that capitalism and freedom are paramount over political projects. While I don’t agree with how she traces capitalism to some choices of philosophers and her disparagement of Kant, I think her insights are far more “progressive” than the atheist pundits today, who very nearly just mirror Democrat party platforms or Euro-styled socialist pieties. That’s not good. Very often ideology of a particular type DOES evolve from atheism, as history has demonstrated over and over and over and over and over and over. I do not fight what history tells us. What I said before is that for most atheists being of the Lefter side of the aisle, so it is obvious that belief in God gets replaced by a heady aspiration about the power of government. Which indicates to me they aren’t all that darned bright at that. A position of “non-belief” and complete skepticism across the board is ultimately impossible. Unless perhaps you’re a fish. Or you’re pondering a conversation one might have with Socrates, where “knowledge” is merely a series of negations.
Yes, definitionally you could say atheism is merely the “negation” of some belief. One could be “a”-Bigfoot. Or “A-Easter Bunny”. And one would predictably not see the world necessarily in “X” way if one did not believe in the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny. Etc., Etc., Etc. But not only have I tended to notice certain kinds of connections between atheist advocacy and tyrannical type thinking at the regime level and leftist ideology at the individual level, in my experience this is more than just “non-belief.” That’s not where the door slams shut for good. The reason, I think, is that God–unlike the tooth fairy–fills in a role that many secularists have relegated to government power or their own desires or prestige, and they’re not happy about the competition.
Most people who espouse a strong emotional or intellectual attachment will also have an aesthetic reason for thinking the way the do, or seeing the world/justice/fairness a certain way. People who’re this aggressive about either a belief or a non-belief don’t tend to tread lightly as if the matter were simply “I don’t believe in Santa.” No one mentions the word God more than atheists. They don’t mention Santa all that much. If God does not exist, whom is there to rail at so much? If the matter were simply a type of negation, as in not believing in space aliens, atheists would not be so aggressive. But people–most people–at some level have some alternate level of replacement for what they think is another person’s deficiencies. Thus people who don’t believe in God can’t simply assert negations all day. They believe (falsely, I think) in some pious notion of the brotherhood of man, or that science can solve all our problems, or if we can just tweak the mechanisms of government in “X” way then all will be sound. So there are other animating ideals at work. People don’t simply NOT believe. They just transfer their hopes to something else. Some pious PC notion or multi-culti mush.
In 1944 during a horrific time in human history in yet another war the Europeans decided to share with the rest of the planet, Henri de Lubas wrote a reflection on Europe’s civilizational crisis, Le drame de l’humanisme athee. By “atheistic humanism” he very well meant to say that a union of ideology is common–and expected–and was not some freelance individualistic notion of a few skeptics who compare God to thundering cloud gods, but rather an ORGANIZED rejection of God that transcended national boundaries, and went on to establish a brotherhood of transnational states with government power as the focus for good. It WAS, in his words, very much an ideology and political project to fight for. He also went on to write, to his credit:
“It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What IS true is that, without God, he can only organize it against other men.”
Keep in mind most violence in what historians call the Modern Era is secular in origin, for the very secular reasons of prestige and power. Even in the cases of religious influence you generally had the State as a vested party or personal ambition as the flashpoint. As C.S. Lewis has written, most of the evil in the world is hardly divinely inspired, and the suffering is produced by human beings armed with whips, guns, bombs, bayonets, and not mere words. Yet there is hope. Traditional morality is based on the idea that there is a moral order in the Cosmos that is beyond us and external to us, and makes claims on us. Left to our own devices, we don’t fair too well. Yet, hope is found only if it is acknowledged that man can be a saint only if he can also be a devil sometimes. This is the grand dichotomy of life. One historian has noted that the secularist/atheist view, in relying too heavily on mankind’s rules of the game and power and prestige as the answers, has magnified the problem. Few admit this. Jean Paul Sartre, the most famous atheist of the old days, did remain consistent that sans God, there is no such beast as “the moral order”, and was consistent to a “T” when claiming, for example, that the Allies could only make some subjective moral claim (at most) about Hitler being worse than they were at the Nuremburg trials. So it went. I have to give Sartre credit where due. He’s consistent. The other problem is the unfounded claim that the inner self is “good” by nature. Please. That statement does not resonate with people with children too well. To claim otherwise seems to defy common sense experience. In an essay titled “The Discreet Charm of Nihilism”, Nobel laureate Czeslaw Milsz argues that in order to escape from an eternal fate in which our sins are punished, man seeks to free himself from religion. He writes:
“A TRUE opium of the people is a belief in Nothingness after death–the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”
October 20, 2008 @ 8:47 amPaul:
Since you’ve enjoyed the concept of psychological projection on the “fantastic” insights modern psychology can give us about religion, how does that one sound?
We find among the unfaithful more than just paeans to “reason.” We find the avoidance factor and “ick” factor you mentioned before. This time the aversion directed against believers.
Many atheists plainly admit, as did Huxley, that the very notion of God was abhorrent in that he felt that sexual freedom was being curtailed somehow. Nietzsche wrote that if one were to prove God of the Christians, we should be even LESS able to believe in him. On the possibility of life after death, H.L. Mencken, a man not known for scientific prowess but a sharp pen, wrote that “my private inclination is to HOPE that it is not so.” In God, the Failed Hypothesis, Victor Stenger confesses that not only does he disbelieve in God, he doesn’t like the Christian God. The Christian God does seem to be very exacting in His demands. True. This works against the old worn out hypothesis that Christianity in particular is some kind of “psychological wish fulfillment” program. The God of the Scriptures in Jewish and Christian tradition demands purity rather than indulgence, work over sloth, virtue rather than convenience, charity rather than self-gratification, and honor rather than impudence. So “wish fulfillment” would seem to most likely create some kind of other God than the one described in the Bible. No wonder Thomas Nagel echoes his comrades above saying “I WANT atheism to be true….It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God….I don’t WANT there to be a God; I don’t want there to be a universe like that.”
Julian Huxley wrote “The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting God as a supernatural being is enormous.”
Atheism is thus the escape valve, the nihilism in which all is about Epicurean pleasure, in which horrible notions about mankind get legitimized by “science.” The point being not that atheists are more evil by nature. All men fall short of the Glory of God. The point is that atheism provides an easy duckblind cover–a hiding place–for those who do not want to be burdened with evil. The funniest part of this is that what I had always suspected is now in print. Thus for example Aldous Huxley, Julian’s brother, has written that the chief reason for the animus against God is not so much the evidence or science, but rather we don’t want people making suggestions to us about our sex lives. He said “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning. Consequently it had none., and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption….for myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
Betrand Russell, another Skeptic darling, wrote in Why I Am Not A Christian that he felt the worst feature of Christianity was its attitude towards sex. Which is funny in itself since while the Bible warns against promiscuity, the New Testament and Old take pains to ensure that couples not refrain from each other too long in order to avoid problems. Christopher Hitchens wrote that “the divorce between the sexual life and fear….can now be at last attempted on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse.” Two bird-brained issues with one stone, Paul; there’s your quotation commentary from Hitchens for the day, too, as well as his typical ignorance about the Bible.
Sorta funny, Paul. Isn’t it? When atheists give these elaborate justifications and Seinfeld-like “insights” about religion and why they think God does not (RE: should not) exist, and attack traditional morality, they is very likely thinking of their sex organs. The rage against God is not so intellectual after all. It is not cerebral in origin. It is pelvic.
You and I might disagree with others the very notion that science legitimately can make such insights. And I agree with you it cannot and should not. Fortunately, experience can show truth also.
But then, I’m not infanticidist Peter Singer, nor do I have the time to counteract all of his “science” about the nature of killing one’s own young as legitimized by biology. Seemingly strange is all this callousness to human life about things like infanticide advocacy and euthanasia. But the paradox is resolved if you see that it is precisely because humans are so awful in our private lives that we need the pretension of “virtue” in our public lives. Thus advocacy of more government involvement in people’s lives to “help” them, stem cell research, abortion for “stressed” moms, condoms flung out of planes which end up enriching warlords in Africa, who grab both the cash and the boxes and sell them on the black market. Etc.
Anything for a cheap buzz to make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy. This vile behavior needs a psycholgical excuse. A cold beer or two does not.
If you wish to live a degenerate life and think of fetal meat as something to be sucked into a sink or promiscuity as something to cling to, it IS true that God is your mortal enemy. And this absurd notion that mankind is progressing morally as if riding some kind of escalator is easily shot down. In Western society, as influenced by Christianity, the human condition improved both materially and socially, yes, but when we see the revolutionary writings of men like infanticide advocates Peter Singer and Stephen Pinker and understand they are merely hitching a ride as much as causing the current crisis in morals in this nation, we can have some legitimate concerns.
Contra to what you said, the current trending is to a much darker and more savage world filling in the value gaps, especially now that Europe is demographically moribund and has decided that children are redneckish passé. There is no Escalator of Human Progress. There is only vigilance, like the Founding Fathers said would be necessary. Much of what happened in the ancient world was born of necessity, like slavery. And while I’m not a PC cretin, I do agree that often we read back from our own age a modernist angst about what they had to go through to survive and get things done. Warfare today is basically mechanized slaughter, and the scale of destruction is even greater. The same technological insights that unlocked the atom are now being squabbled over in some corners of the world to be able to lift entire cities into the stratosphere. North Korea’s Bea Arthur look alike standing around in camo gear is not a fundamentalist tent preacher either. So Singer’s laughable advocacy of returning to those glorious days of chunking children to the sea when in our time we have plenty to eat, is all the more obnoxious for its claim of “enlightened” thinking and being on the side of the “Brites.”
http://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/stalin-the-gulags-and-christianity/
I know you don’t like these nefarious associations, but like the men who disavow the Christian influence on culture and science and proclaim socialism as the shining path of glory to the kiddies in the public schools, the atheists of the past and present also are mostly leftist and Statist in origin. That is to say most of these men believe the State and National power are primal, and individual rights are deemed secondary. Speech is important but not the full story. Hitchens and Dawkins for example are big on their jabber about speech, but don’t seem too enthusiastic about economic freedom (and Hitchens hails from Leftist politics and socialism advocacy) and freedom of choice issues in schooling.
We can contrast this worship of horror and Nothingness masquerading as “Progressivism”, with the polar opposite that evolved in the United States but had its roots in Western Europe:
October 20, 2008 @ 8:54 amIn one of the most famous classics in sociology of all time, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, political scientist Max Weber traces the rise of capitalism to a spirit of calling or “election” introduced by Calvinism. When you pull the foundation out from underneath a building, does it still stand all that well? What about entire cultures and nations? Sociologist Peter Berger had a similar finding in his famous “Capitalism and Freedom”, to the effect that not just capitalism, but freedom and representative government itself could be traced to Christian roots that began in Europe.
Elsewhere, Paul, you’re merging falsehood with guestimation here on Biblical passages. At most, this is a combo of interpretations errors (often circulating on the Skepty Net for years now) as I’ll soon demonstrate. That is not the same things as saying “biblical” error. Not all Christians take literalists views. If for no other reason not so much in “leaving things behind” but in the thorny issues that the Bible is not always literalist, and leans to the poetic and metaphorical. The Bible NEVER says the “Sun revolves around the Earth”. Not once. Nor among the other mythologies does it say the earth is flat. Not once. This smear–or series of smears–was concocted by various detractors to accuse the early Church or the Jews of holding geocentric and flat earth views. None of this stands up to serious inquiry. It is something that gets passed around but is the height of laziness (your other handy claim). The Bible DOES have what is called “phenomenalistic” language to the effect that it demonstrates either appearance of something, such as “the sun rises”—-a phrase we have today, and even astronomers use in off-moments over a nice cup of coffee. But they don’t get fired for being unscientific for saying it, do they? The “four corners of the earth” refers to the cardinal directions (north, south , east, and west), etc. the Foundations of the earth and similar phrases refers to God’s power.
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/flatheaded-christians-turns-out-this-is.html
As to geocentrism, this was assumed by some members of the Church. Not for Scriptural reasons, but because the Church—-guess what—-deferred to the SECULAR authorities at the time, who in turn relied heavily on Aristotelian philosophy, which for the most part was responsible for the geocentric view . One aspect of Aristotelian philosophy dealt with the “proper placement” of things, and as Church fathers typically did not get involved in this except some commentary about harmony from God, it was the accepted interpretation of things. However wrong they might have been, this notion is not found in Scripture. No one. What is mentioned is that God made the “greater light” and the “lesser light”. And the stars. Metaphorically, these were treated differently at different times. But the notion that a false cosmology is given is wrong. As with the Galileo controversy, the common story surrounding what the Church did regarding Copernicus is mostly myth, and even where the church was in the wrong it was wrong on the basis of HUMAN tradition, and not the Scriptures themselves. Rather it was an idealized merging of Aristotelian thought into plain observations. And at that time observation did tend to indicate a geocentric view. This was common sense. We have to keep in mind that many discoveries we crow about today are matters of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants. That is to say not all things we take for granted were easy to discern with the materials and observations at hand. Anti-religious polemicists like Andrew Dickson White, Daniel Boorstein, and Jacob Bronowski have exaggerated the Church’s “dark” opposition to science and pulled quotes out of historical context on more than one occasion, leading to confusion.
So, I’ll hold hands on this one just as an example, as studying history is one of my pastimes:
Going over the fact that the words of Calvin and others allegedly opposed to Copernicanism were largely apocryphal, Nancy Pearcy concludes,
“The truth is that theologians had little reason to concern themselves with Copernicanism. Modern historians often write as though Copernican theory represented a grave threat to the Christian view of human significance. Copernicus demoted mankind, is said, from his exalted place on the center stage of the universe. For example, in the Making of the Modern Mind, John Randall writes that the Copernican revolution ’swept man out of his proud position as the central figure and end of the universe, and made him a tiny speck on a third-rate planet revolving about a tenth-rate sun drifting in and endless cosmic ocean.’ The implication is that Christians mobilized against Copernicanism to resists this shattering of their cozy cosmology. But the literature of the day does little to support this portrayal. It is true that medieval cosmology, adapted from Aristotelian philosophy, placed the earth at the center of the universe. But in medieval cosmology the center of the universe was not a place of special significance. Quite the contrary, it was the locus of evil. At the very center of the universe was Hell, then the Earth, then (moving outward from the center), the progressively nobler spheres of the Heavens. In this scheme of things, humanity’s central location was no compliment, nor was its loss a demotion. In fact, in Copernicus’s own day a common objection to his theory was that it ELEVATED mankind ABOVE his true station. In Medieval cosmology, human significance was rooted not in the Earth’s central location but in the REGARD God shows toward it. Hence the idea that Copernican theory threatened the Christian teaching of human significance is an anachronism. It reads back into history the angst of our own age.
”
And reading of this angst is a very common tactic of modern secularists who use PC pieties and modern cultural hang-ups to read from history some ill or misstatement or misrepresentation they think was caused by wholly by the Church. Moreover, while I don’t want to go into all the literature, a good primer might be Christopher Dawson’s Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, where the author demonstrates for one thing how the monasteries became the locus of productivity and learning throughout Europe. Where you once had tribal wastelands they produced hamlets, then towns, and eventually commonwealths and cities. Christianity is responsible for the way our society is organized and for the way we currently live. See also J.M. Roberts The Triumph of the West, which details how the very encoding of common law, long before the Magna Carta was already extant due to the Judeo-Christian insistence on law dating back to the early Christians who spread this idea along with the faith throughout early Europe.
If the Fab Four and other detractors of Christianity who hang around ACLU offices all day or pester them with emails, are TRULY concerned about “science” education in the public schools, they might take a peek at the fact that even in the other areas of inquiry–very important ones, and not just some grand story about cells to humans–the public fails in science knowledge. Is there only ONE subject available in the high school science classroom these days? Surveys show that the vast majority of young people in America today are scientifically illiterate of ALL aspects of science. How many high school grads could tell you the meaning of Einstein’s famous equation? Droves of young people have no idea about photosynthesis or Boyle’s Law. So why is there no ACLU pit bull attack or any political movement by politicians or “concerned scientists” to address this problem and file lawsuits on behalf of Boyle’s Law?
Oh, and as to your apes-to-humans statements, while its true that we’re considered the “naked ape”, I’m glad to see the honesty returned to this. It used to be when I was in school and from the textbooks we learned it was “pure myth” that any paleontologist or biologist ever said such a thing. The phrase was “humans and apes share a common ancestor.”
October 20, 2008 @ 8:58 amGenetics is one thing, but I well remember an article from John Oller about this very topic, and when it comes to the differences in cognitive ability, the difference in ape and human is a vast conceptual chasm. In “The Origin of Human Language Capacity: In Whose Image”, by John Oller and John Omdahl discuss the divide of apes and humans. Not to diss the charm of Koko, Gua, Vicki and the other star apes so famous for “aping” sign language, but as Oller and Omdahl point out from input from noted linguists like Noam Chomsky in the Managua Letters, the conceptual ability of apes is not even what is claimed. Chomsky is controversial due to some of his radical politics, but on the linguistic front his theories are interesting in that they seem to refute the Darwinian notion that language evolved by rote and chance. He even demonstrates that most of our language skills must be at some level “innate” and are too complex to have evolved. Apes have only a fuzzy notion of concepts per se. Which means that their “words”–such as they are–via sign language–are probably not as insightful as Penny Patterson and other researchers seem to think. Likewise, I have a pet caiman I can interact with–a reptile–who responds to some English words by rote repetition and association. I do not claim Alexandra has any special insights, or that her response serves as an insight on the development of language per se.
This can be complicated, but language ability, as Oller points out, is but one parameter of human specialness that is not so easily reduced to incremental notions about biological development. It is not so easy as stacking concepts and representations together like prefabricated chicken houses over vast eons of time.
Everything. I can’t help you much on this one, as it boils down to the issue of culpability. Though it should be straightforward that in creatures that have no free will, morals are not even an option. It would be an utterly ridiculous, warrantless assumption.
My reference was to ‘domestic’ as in the meaning of the “domestic front”—the nation’s doings and relations among its citizens, internally, stateside. It has nothing to do with marriage. We’re not talking Archie and Edith here, Paul.
As to this admirably rigorous defense of these Horsemen individuals you gave, I never said they are not justified in their collective position that the Bible was not a treatise on science.
(If I ever get a traffic ticket, I’ll email you to wiggle out of it.)
I happen not to believe it is EITHER. Try that one on for size. I thought I made that clear. I don’t recall claiming the Bible is science as we understand the term. The Bible (merely being a “Bronze Age text”), deals with man’s relation to God and the resultant story about how to attain personal salvation. Now as far as THAT kind of statement (Bronze age), which is just as nasty in some ways as a true scold, see BeastRabban. He has an excellent treatment of this charge.
http://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2007/11/25/just-a-bronze-age-text/
No, I do not think Dawkins and the other charming men thus described are terrorists per se, but their nasty attitudes are nasty enough to warrant concern for their anger at faith in general. This might lead to various forms of government coercion, among other problems. An easy-listening tyranny of men who deign to tell others what they will believe, is not terror per se, but it IS tyranny nonetheless, and on par with people who also happen to want either their own or government power to get their will. Zarquawi just has more direct–and shall we say–more personal, somewhat wetter means of the same thing. One groups advocates Darwin and leftist politics and “rightsizing” speech and learning to conform to some common groupthink. The other wants the will of the Prophet. Force is force, by knife blade or legislation.
Agreed. Too bad the Fab Four don’t quite see things that way. They have made very aggressive statements. But on this end, no one is taking away your speech. Christian parents, like even some non-Christian critics, might hate the promiscuity of the public schools and the gladiator-in-training atmosphere. We don’t like the vile and puerile imagery that passes for “entertainment” and “raving critics” crap on the Idiot Box in the living room. But I’ve never run into calls for censorship of TV or radio. Look to Nancy Pelosi and the “Fairness Doctrine” and David Brock’s Media Matters website for that kind of thing. Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity and even bloggers can’t so much as say the phrase “we’re concerned about government expenditures” or “Michelle Obama has some nasty comments about whites” without Brock frothing, pounding and asking readers for massive letter writing campaigns to pull advertising and create new speech codes.
I think what you’re seeing with “using legislation”, as with the Californication homeschool case, is that Christians can and should use every legal means to defend their faith when it comes to personal issues, such as when guys like PZ Meyers and “education” groups (as if the public schools have room to talk!) wanted to limit or prohibit certain teachings in the home. Christians have no illusions about influencing the major media or “changing” the schools. I’m not enough of an expert on ID to make a claim one way or another. I’ll just say that its possible you could have a “Design Parameter” to the Universe. If so, just as your statement about airing out opposing positions, this is the perfect moment if such detection is valid. You just got through saying all scientific statements are provisional and based on what best fits the evidence. That should remain open to the possibility of change.
There ARE numerous attacks on Christians on several fronts. It is not just about the teaching of things in schools. It’s important to understand the history of education, the major players, and their historical and continuing mockery of religion using the public schools as the vehicle. Just to name a handful from a large group, many early pioneers of the public schools like John Dewey, Richard Rorty, Margaret Sanger, and Paul Blanchard felt the schools were to be the anvil upon which Christianity was to be smashed. And I DO get the impression these kinds of people should be taken at their word. They meant it, and today the curricula does in many cases (even where I went to school in Atlanta) reflect this attitude. Of course, along with promotion of other things hardly indicating of “love” for freedom. It is noteworthy that the teachers’ unions, though legally unable at PRESENT, have always wished to outlaw homeschooling, for example. In some states they did. Zan Tyler, a South Carolina attorney who follows such issues, is old enough to remember being placed in handcuffs and told to hit the ground when she tried homeschooling her children. The animosity is NOT based on questions of academics. That issue is extinct. With so many problems afflicting the schools and the mockery and the dangers of secular society, along with the Biblical imperative to be “in the world but not OF the world” (being a light to other but not copying their behaviors), many Christians also feel materialist Darwinism–as commonly taught–is part of a larger agenda. Indeed some historians, like Jeffrey Russell Burton, have noted this, as did those early pioneers of public education who made sure that the connection was made between Darwinism and active anti-Christian sentiment. While many people might deny that Darwinism in its materialist form as taught is necessarily atheistic, I think you’d find this opinion more often confirmed by the Four Horsemen types you’ve defended than not. As to ID being conflated with creationism, and the Establishment Clause, that is asinine and it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. Creationism would be one thing that would violate that clause. Whether valid or not, ID is a program that makes no specific claim about Design or specific religious input nor does it advocate such. Any more than SETI uses its own design parameters to detect design info possibly hinting at communication from other worlds being designed vs. background random noise. Either God exists or does not–and His manifestation is either real or not. If it could be known, His presence is no more a violation of the First Amendment than the existence of elderberries and bluejays. The First Amendment, if taken to the interpretation the ACLU and others make, would seemingly indicate that only atheists need apply for public office, so as not to “influence” others about some issues. It was not intended to drum religious people out of office but rather make sure that the State was not condoning or paying for an “official” church sanction or advocacy of a PARTICULAR creed.
The Constitution protects secularists and believers alike. As it does bikers, artists, writers, icky people who prefer Marlboro Lights to Evian bottled water, and people who stay up late and drink too much coffee and those who don’t eat their daily allowance of carbs, as well as people who have differing opinions on how to raise the kiddies. This includes honest disagreements about whether sending them to Liberal’s Reproductive System, er, I mean, the public schools, is a good idea after all. It protects–or should–people who like to hunt elks and ideally is supposed to NOT allow voter fraud in Ohio, though on this last one we just got submarines. I realize the High Court is not always consistent. Recently the Court answered a query from a Democratic Ohio Secretary of State who apparently feels she need not bother doing her job, asked for a reversal of the lower court decision forcing her to verify the ballots of 600,000 people probably not eligible to vote in that state. She basically asked “please let us cheat on behalf of the Messiah, Obama” and the Court said that’s just dandy. Oh well. Can’t win them all.
The point is that regardless, the Constitution is a body of laws that makes no mention of what an entire legion of journalists like Hitchens think or zoologists like Dawkins, who thinks apes should have human rights, wants to do to our kids. It holds no brief for these people. It is not a document that says “Behold, what Dawkins thinks is now the new standard for belief. We have no evidence God appeared in a vision to Dawkins while he was writing about the moral community of apes, to change assumptions–thus teaching your kids about God is child abuse.” So parents and others who seek guidance for the young have the right to alternative forms of education as well as EDIFIcation and inculcation of moral values. The Constitution is not about “that which Daniel Dennett happens to favor.”
False. Or, at least, it depends on what you mean by “law” and the word “advocacy.” Against adults, in the US? Probably very difficult. Not so much in Europe. But against children, whom public education advocates like Horace Mann said were malleable, like wax? Another story. They don’t HAVE to rely on new laws just yet, as many are encoded into education already–which is the Dawkinsian frontline of attack anyhow.
Why would he change or advocate another line of attack when this one has worked so well?
Like Joseph Sobran penned, the modern public school has a long history of being the willing reproductive system for liberalism. The schools are the vehicles by which religion will be mocked and chased to the margins. Paid for by my tax money whether I have kids in there–or not. Since the public schools are an organ of government, this will have sanction. And it will be easy sanction, since the public schools are controlled by teachers’ unions dedicated to their own interest more than the children and for whom expansion of government power is paramount. To this end, they generally despise religion. I’ll put money down on where the Fab Four would opine about the California courts’ decision to effectively outlaw homeschooling. Doubt they’d fight to have it returned. It did return, but not with the help of the ACLU or these kinds of people, I note. But with legal action from the HSLDA and other groups that many people disdain for their “Christian activism” and “using the courts to get their way.” No sir. Using the courts–as their Constitutional right allows for redress–to make sure core rights remain intact. The HSLDA does not force Dan Dennett to recite passages from the Psalms. (Dawkins is not even an American citizen to my knowledge). It DOES state that parents of Christian children can have this as part of daily reading time. And a good reading it is. Remember what I said before about context? That needs to be understood here. All Leftists and atheists claim “rights” for others. Who the hell doesn’t other than the Aryan Nation? But they aren’t too keen on the activism to preserve these same rights. The proof is in the pudding. I assure you, in the tasting of that pudding, that should the law work against Christians in any regard, including private matters in the home (as in California), you’ll not hear too many weeps from the Fab Four.
Religion is competition to the State’s control over people’s ultimate aspirations. Government wanes in power and prestige and influence if a people find comfort and solace in faith. The inverse is true in Europe, proving the rule. State power grows in direct proportion to the waning of religion, as Europe is largely secular these days. And as I said before, secularism to this degree is what can be called a “present tense” culture—one that writhes in hedonism and sumptuous government handouts and for whom, as Charles Murray has said, “the great ideas have become mere irritants.” That’ s what happens when life is about playtime and having someone else take care of you all the time. I think I can accurately guess where the Fab Four are on the political/ideological scale. Which is too bad. Europe is finding out the hard way that when you marginalize religion, only the marginalized have religion. In this case, the imams and train bombers, unfortunately. And it cannot be fought by pieties and scolds from officials cowering to their demands, as the Spaniards did after the Madrid incident. Secularism of this type is a wishy-washy, pantywaist happy-faced nothingness that doesn’t even have the gall to defend itself against a more confidence culture like Islam. The emptying of the churches did not lead merely to empty churches. It led also to the filling of the mosques, because young people have aspirations beyond the State’s handouts. Why do you think Islam is so attractive to young men?
While it is true that Dawkins HAS made commentary to the effect that he is some kind of “Cultural Christian“, and that what he means by this is that apparently he understands the contribution to culture and even the sciences Christianity has made, he does retain an angry streak that you and I both know full well that should certain legal norms be overcome (less likely here than in Europe), he would be glad to push. Anger is not a productive emotion, Paul. As to the law: The fact that they are not ABLE to get legislation passed at the moment is a reflection of American culture and Constitutional barriers to such notions—NOT their intentions. They have not because they CANNOT. YET. It’s that simple.
Now you asked about specific quotes from the Fab: Well, dipping his pen in bile, Daniel Dennett for his part in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”, certainly had some form of coercion in mind when he opined that religious believers of all types, some 90% of the population of the planet, were comparable to wild animals who need to be caged for the amusement of onlookers (and presumably study on how to prevent religious belief from spreading). And he does suggest that parents should not be allowed to “misinform” the kids about the world in such manner as religion. See Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Simon & Shuster, New York, pp 515-516.
A new member but with longstanding street credit to the Fab Four, John Maddox, has written that “it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science” See Maddox, J. (1994) Nature, 368, 185
One can only presume he plans to defend science in whatever manner he thinks the law can be altered to accommodate.
October 20, 2008 @ 8:59 amNow, I am not going to get around to everything. But I’ll expand on the moral part for now and a few other ditties, since I’m impressed you’ve toughed this one out in what surely you must consider an unpleasant environment.
My message was not so much scolding but clarification on several items. BTW–nothing speaks more of “scolding” than this automatic default assumption that science writers and professional apologists are “fundamentalists” in some wild hair Bible Thumper, tent revival sense. If by the word “fundamentalism” you might mean but a glancing statement about God in some vague form? Then “fundamentalism” might even encompass millions of people who would otherwise be described–at least provisionally–as highly agnostic. So the unfairness here is in there broad brush definitions. I would say in the case of most of the these people the term would not apply in any traditional sense. If the secularists you hang around with are that hypersensitive that mere belief in God is “fundamentalism”, then you might be like the American electorate on some issues–unreachable and thus unreasonable. I don’t think so. I think you are far more intelligent and discerning and capable than that and have an honest search for truth. It’s just that you’ve gotten some of your own mythology churching around like a rock tumbler, and because of this you think those arguments are well polished.
By “fundamentalism”, the term I understand is traditionally used to mean sticking to “the fundamentals” of a faith, yes. Which in the case of myself and BeastRabban is true. Is that wrong or bad? But you’d find he is far more expansive in his theology and is not in the same league as guys who’re supposedly itching to cause Armageddon. So in THAT sense BeastRabban nor Peter Kreeft, nor I are not “fundamentalists”, except that they have an orthodox view of Christian theology. (small ‘O”–not the Eastern Church)
And they go from there. .
Question: What would you deem as a “non-fundamentalist” Christian? Is this a “real” Christian to you—or an apostate? Do you consider that person to be “better” in some way? How so?
More worldly wise than John or myself or theologians who stay with the fundamentals?
True, but for most purposes it is supposed to make them in the general sense, that while its true that all is “provisional”, this provisional statement is more secure than taking something to the bank these days. We rely on this certainty to operate jetliners and cyclotrons and suppose that chemical reactions are regular enough in the outcome to assure the BTU output of biofuels and MRI scans. While I’d agree there are no “laws” of things in OUR sense of the word, and what we generally mean in the confusion is a REGULARITY of patterns that give rise to the appearance of “laws” only, the fact is that we use the term “laws” and “rules” of science and the patterns we see in observation due to practical need for such. Either an experiment or an observation can be said to yield consistent, regular, predictable results, or it cannot. I will agree that from all points of view that MUST be how science statements operate. In that sense, in the interim, they have to be absolute. No one said it better than Dawkins, who said that EVEN IF we had a magic show of a statue of the Virgin Mary waving to people on the street we’d have to assume this irregularity is just not part of the “natural order” and so is invalid as a frame of reference. We have to depend on order.
I’d love to get more into this, as you’ve brought up something that I’ve actually patterned (with some help from Victor Reppert) to better demonstrate, however, how this can lead to ideas about God. But that’s for another time. I would agree that science cannot “find” morality if by that you mean can we use science to advocate something as moral over another viewpoint? No. Can it help make political or policy recommendations or help us deal with something? The Eco-chondriacs and other assorted groups certainly think so. But then they also DO take the time to make points (or try) based, admittedly, on notions and ideologies not found in pure research.
And as to that word I “I love”, I meant obviously “I love IT”–as in I love (sarcastically, of course) this notion that science can lay claim to a reverse engineering of the mind on all things. Of ALL the science out there, it is like HL Mencken said (no friend of Christianity), such a field is rife with as many snake oil salesmen as the old covered chuck wagons of the wild West. There is hardly any broad agreement on the latest PC fads and programs and advocacies that crop up every 30 years under the guise of “psychology.” We had the famous “F-scale” test, which labeled anyone opposed to advanced socialism as being pure “fascist”, we had the phony sex studies from Alfred Kinsey, who turned out to use horrible stats and per his own sympathetic biographer was a loony and masochistic freak, we had the Soviets declaring people warped for not seeing the wonders of free medical care, only to “get it” in some unpleasant ways, we have people diagnosing people’s whole ideology as automatically racists if certain people don’t ascend to the White House in about 2 weeks. On and on it goes. So you’ll forgive my cynicism on this one.
Now it is true in the general sense that morals values come from the “ought” of human experience whereas the “is” of something is the proper domain of science and the two are admittedly difficult to connect. Nevertheless, among the guys you’ve listed in a précis to demonstrate they apparently–despite claiming civil liberty legalism and fighting tooth and nail but offering to deny it to others–don’t mean what they say, the approach that some new moral reality can in fact be distilled form science is all the rage. If the mind is reducible to biochemical, or rather electrochemical processes, then the thinking is that surely morals evolved along with the mind and with some reverse engineering we CAN and allegedly (so the tale goes) get down to the nitty-gritty about what biology teaches in the final analysis about what is good vs. bad. Of course this will not usually fall along traditional lines but could be explained that tradition is actually a bio-response to environmental pressures. (Question–if religion and traditional morals DID evolve as mere survival mechanisms, why would they no longer have any survival validity–or are they just vestigial, like some animals’ organs?? If something more has evolved, is that “better” or just better utilization–and do you consider utilitarianism to be the same as morals???)
I should mention here again Peter Singer, famous bioethics professor who goes beyond the “abortion is good sometimes” notion you have, and says based on his experience studying primitive cultures, outright infanticide up to 2 years of age is OK also for us also. And why not? Why the non-groovy hang-ups, brother? Now granted as you pointed out our moral values are just our own projections, subjective, and the science is-ought gap is not generally found. Let not your hearts be troubled, he says. He found the walkway over the river! Per Singer (and I’m assuming you’d disagree but WOULD like to see a cogent reason why other than “he makes me sick”), when food and resources are low he finds titillating the analogy of momma birds who destroy their own nests and homey gals like South Carolina’s own Susan Smith. Charming and affable enough woman. “Lady” might be too strong an adjective. Jilted by a married lover, she nevertheless got praise and adoration from the Death is Great crowd–and Singer–for calmly and with little emotion placing her two young sons in the back of her car and pushing it into a lake near a town called Greenville, SC. Like the mothers in the audience of the great Roman Coliseum who took their children to see lions pull flesh off of victims, she seemed nonplussed about the whole affair. Thankfully, the cops and the courts here in the backwoods didn’t take the advice of their highly educated betters hailing from Academia’s snot—and charged her with murder.
Which raises a question. She’s a nice gal. Should we allow her to go free since her “bio” urges made her do this and times were tough? Where are we to draw these lines then? It is true that some tribes in history had various methods of, ahem, disposing of the unwanted masses of tissue that got in the way of romance, fun, the equivalent of candlelight dinners (campfire songs, and other fripperies of life. So is this a reversion to mere primitivism? (as I think), or a sophisticated message from Singer and Co. indicated, as HE and Stephen Pinker state, that we just have too many blasted moral hang-ups, not too few?
It was Christianity that eliminated infanticide from the practices (although technically illegal) of the Romans and other pagans they encountered in mid Europe and Northern Europe as well. Christianity is what brought learning and reason to the hooting tribal chieftains that used to inhabit much of the landscape after the fall of Rome. So in rolling back Christianity, as Peter Singer advocates, one presumes that he is in good company with other atheists “ethicists” pretending to do good works by actually invoking a very ancient and primitive tribal practice that had its roots in resource issues no longer a concern for the modern world. These concerns did not make the ancients correct morally, but it DOES make Singer’s desires to see infanticide come to the West and resurrect itself all the more laughable. Since I presume you have some delineation or cutoff point at which children should be considered raw meat and disposable like so many used paper towel tubes, it would be interesting to see what that line of demarcation is. Singer invokes Darwinism to make the point that there is a continuum, not a clear separation, between humans and animals at all stages. So animals should be granted human rights. Do you agree? Why not? Singer also now says the humans should have some rights removed. Agree? In a book called The War Against the Intellect, in a chapter called “The Demotion of Man”, Peter Shaw confirms that Darwinian thinking is behind such asinine demotions that now are infecting cultural arguments over “animal rights” which are really a demotion of human integrity. This influence extends to art and literature also.
The answering of these questions will bring out either the best in PCness, or the best in equivocation. Though I doubt you’ll be rooting and hooting for the Multi-Culti take on things so obviously wrongly premised, that says all cultures are equally valid in dealing with human problems, it will be interesting to see why infanticide and abortion are stacking up on the moral ladder, and why other than appearance there should in fact be any difference.
As to the WHOLE history of the Church allegedly doing this, see again BeastRabban’s site.
October 20, 2008 @ 9:03 amOn more recent events:
You’re going to have to be more specific on the HPV vaccine issue. It is my understanding in some cases the authorities tried to get this thing FORCED, against the wishes of parents. It appears that in some cases the concern for some parents–not unfairly–was this automatic assumption that the little darling princesses would have sex anyhow in our culture and thus why not just get them vaccinated. But that should be parental choice. While I understand that abstinence can be difficult in a culture as sex-sodden as ours, that IS the main vehicle of transmission, and the success rate is 100% if you keep you pants zipped up. This is not for authorities to decide. Of course, it should be made available if that’s what consumers wish. That’s another issue. I don’t ask the government to force me to take asthma medicine, do I? Now for minors and dependents in my shape, if it turns into a child care issue, this is understandable when it comes to some medicines. That’s a DSS issue. But the HPV vaccine for 12 year old girls?
Please. If she’s that loose she’s been up for sale by daddy himself. Grief.
As to overpopulation, that is mostly myth—at least for the West. Even elsewhere this is conjectural. Julian Simon has shown that for the West and the Asian Dragon economies, the opposite of deprivation occurs in rapid population growth. At the very most the third world has this problem in SOME areas. If I were a doctor I would not say to some emaciated, Icibod Crane looking character, a human skeleton, and say “buddy, you need to shed the pounds” the same as I would parts of Asia.
Paul Erlich’s only Population Explosion was the number of nuts he generated from his book of a similar name. The myth of a surging world population in the face of demographic trends and technological as well as economic advances that made traditionally large families both unaffordable and impractical was long seen. The world will be uninhabitED long before it will become uninhabitABLE. Demographers have seen this for a while now. And we in the West, while not needing to go back to the Waltons’ days of 15 people saying goodnight, could use a little reproduction now and then in order to rightsize our false math on how to field the armies of workers who in turn will pay for the benefits of tomorrow’s Marxian America. With Obama the bills will get larger anyhow. And it’ll take more than a few burger flippers and high taxes on the rich to keep the gray hairs gilded in SS benefits. The Bible preached being fruitful from the beginning of things to populate the earth. There is no indication this necessarily means that modern man is to do the same regardless of context. In the old days you’d lose children to disease, the Amelekites, famine, animals, etc. Today it could be argued in the modern world these concerns are not generally found in creampuff societies like ours, relatively free from want. There is disagreement among some Christians on family planning issues. I think the best advice given is what my own pastor said in that it depends on one’s personal circumstances and choice. Having said THAT, most Christians agree that economics or hardship ALONE should certainly not be a final deterrent to having at least a child or two, as there does seem to be references elsewhere many times about children being the glory of God. Here I think again my own pastor’s response to the common query about “be fruitful and multiply”–to which he responded, “yeah, but these days not by one couple” Speaking of human fecundity and “faith”, I find it interesting that the Secular Left and the Skeptic types seem to have their own unbounded faith in the power of government and organization to rescue mankind from his problems, even while the Islamist march continues on Europe, while the sour demographics indicate a dying civilization for the West, and the false math upon which the advanced secular state is predicated upon is starting to catch up with reality while facing down Islamic births galore, it seems it is the SECULAR world living on pure faith, and borrowed time. The Blue State Secular Progressives are not reproducing themselves for fear of offending mother earth, and yet the horrible irony in all their abortion advocacy and contraceptive praises is that with one designer baby at age 40 to show for their careers, it seems that since the last person standing is the one who forges tomorrow’s culture, they got the short straw. The Jesus freaks and church goin’ rednecks and Holy Rollers are the confident ones who’re still reproducing. Something to consider, eh?
If you don’t reproduce you follow the grand rainbow of life to the other side. And it ain’t a pot-o-gold. It’s EXTINCTION. See also “Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns” by Jay Lehr, and “The Ultimate Resource“, by Julian Simon, both of whom–along with their fellow researchers–annihilate overpopulation frets, and other hysteria mongering.
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2007/05/this-just-in-again-children-hurt-mother.html
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2006/03/liberals-doomed-to-extinction-darwin.html
As to the whole mythology of Christians being the proximate cause of the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the convenient scapegoating with a political/ideological twist: Would you like to help people–really help them? Let’s spend a few hundred thousand bucks and put malaria into the “E” column, for extinct. Or, we could tackle some of the diseases that aren’t as fashionable as the AIDS lobby likes to dig, but kill many magnitudes more people. Like hum-drum, non-exiting stuff like diarrhea and dysentery. Giving billions of dollars to Africa is a fool’s errand, and generally ends up chunking condoms out of planes and then into the hands of tribal warlords who profit from the resale. DDT would be more effective over advocacy of condoms and politically correct mosquito nets if the goal is to save African lives. Gotta get past the Green heavies first:
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/pelvic-privacy-as-public-policy.html
Finally, as to this charge of my not making the citations and references good enough?
All you have to do is follow them, Paul. I’m not asking you to do something painful or that you don’t seek out in other areas. You just got through telling me about having comprehensive knowledge of everything the Fab Four have written on these topics.
This was a long post, I know. But even to that end, I can’t sit here all hours of the night, make it even longer, and copy down several entire passages or try for hours to surgically excise exact paragraphs for people just to get past the name or link. Having said that, once you have the material in hand you should be able to find at your leisure quite easily.
But sitting here in front of the glowing screen to do that for person after person is tedious. Write down the names if you wish, and go back later.
Or click the links and search by topic or see if Amazon has Kreeft, for example. I’m sure they do.
I didn’t.
Charming, though. That was cute. Yes, Fumento has written for more than 20 years–but the stem cell link I provided has several interesting articles that don’t go back nearly that far, as this is a closer issue to recent years. For him I provided none other. I am not going to excise exact passages all the time. But in his case, the issues are clear enough, and this go around I’ve tried to whittle down to exact links to topics where possible and where my eyes didn’t start crossing. I linked to some of my own not for puffery but because as student of history and political science, and my unfortunate recognition of who in the past is more prone to tyranny, I thought you’d find it interesting. Search by topic on BeastRabban’s site and you’ll find the topics of note in about, oh, 35 seconds. In any case I tried to link directly to the material. I’m not as good of a write as BR, but still…You’ll enjoy his works.
As to Wiki, yes they have been implicated in altering entries to the point where if you are a conservative author, you need to look elsewhere for fair treatment. Fumento’s has been altered and attempts to rightsize the whole bruha keep failing. Numerous cases of Wiki editors erasing entries and filling in their own material are popping up. And so some people just simply stop bothering to make alterations altogether. I’d say that’s an agenda.
October 20, 2008 @ 9:05 amPaul,
I’ll grant you the Crusades, which were a Christian reaction to Islamic expansionism, did not demonstrate the sanctity of life. I take your meaning with regard to the inquisition, though in fact the inquisitor (who was a kind of roaming supreme court justice) probably saved a great many lives. It was, generally speaking, the local authorities who got wrapped up in attempting to burn people at stakes. The inquisition was, in many cases, responsible for seeing that people got fair trials as opposed to mob justice. But, as I say, I take your point that there have been significant historical exceptions.
In return, I think you should take my point. From its beginnings, the sanctity of life has been a value held to by the church. This is in stark contrast to the low value placed upon human life (children but also women) in the Roman Empire, something which the Christians learned first hand on many occasions.
I presume you’re referring to a crucifix. Actually, I’m not Catholic but even if I were you are substantially misunderstanding the symbolism. I won’t go into all of that which I think would bore you. I will just say that the cross is a symbol of triumph over death, not of human sacrifice. That is, anyway, how Christians see it.
These results have been challenged. Steve Levitt has admitted a mistake in his data which caused the correlation to appear stronger than it actually was. What remains of his theory has also been challenged (successfully in my opinon) by Steve Sailer.
I believe you’re referring to the study we debunked here. Since I know you don’t like taking our word for it, please note that George Gallup (who knows a bit about statistical studies) said it was junk. The journal that published Paul’s study published two analyses of his work in their next issue, both of which found it lacking.
Of course the fact that it’s garbage didn’t stop it from reappearing in Dawkins’ book and in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism. So much for a high standard of evidence.
This is one of the nuances of Christianity atheists often miss. Christians do not believe that, sans faith, people are immoral. On the contrary, our understanding is that the moral law is written on the heart of every individual. So, in a sense, your statement is Biblically warranted. The issue isn’t that we lack a moral sense, it’s that the moral sense is too easily disregarded by a corrupt will, e.g. in the pursuit of money.
I would say it’s not good enough. Apparently, you believe infanticide is appropriate under some circumstances and even desirable. I’ll just say that I’m not surprised you feel that way. It is the logical outcome of your views.
Putting down people’s rejection of ESCR to the ick factor is just silly. For one thing, most Christians support ASCR, which by your reasoning should be equally icky.
No, what’s icky about it isn’t cultures growing in agar, it’s the idea that nascent life should become a means rather than an end. I’m fairly sure Kant would have something to say about this quite apart from scripture.
Furthermore, your suggestion that Christians are justifying an emotional response because nothing in their faith tells them what to believe…It’s wrong for a number of reasons, but instead of pointing those out let me resort to your own brand of meta-reasoning so you can see how it comes across:
1) We are programmed by evolution to distinguish between our camp and “the other” who may represent a danger to us.
2) Atheists decide that religion is the source of the world’s problems, the ultimate other and should be destroyed, the sooner the better. A declaration of war.
3) Ridding the world of the other gives individual atheists a sense of purpose. Their gnostic superiority over their fellow citizens is also a rewarding belief which makes them feel special.
4) Blog commenter invents a scenario which proves that being pro-life is the result of pre-programmed evolutionary impulses.
5) Having successfully attacked the other and thereby carried out the will of his communty, his hypothalmus floods with pleasurable sensations.
6) The sense of pleasure is generalized as he reflects that his small action, attacking theists, has served the greater good.
Is this really how you want to talk to people? Or is it just a nerdy way of being a jerk to strangers?
October 20, 2008 @ 10:57 amOh wow, what a huge amount to respond to. Well, I’m sure I can’t cover all of it, but I’ll give it a go. I’m going to take each post by it’s post number.
(Rolls up sleeves)
#50 Wakefield:
No, no. Not utilitarianism. It’s not a justification of what should be moral. It is materialistic explanation of how our moral intuitions evolved. The passage to which you were referring was an idea about what is not about what should be. This entire post is really just about you thinking that I am presenting a “should” when all I am doing is presenting an idea about what is.
#51 Jim:
Got to love the digestion metaphors.
The word of an authority doesn’t constitute proof. This statement is more an indication of your faith than of my false claims.
Evidence that Demand’s a Verdict:
I have not read the whole book, but I did look up the preview as well as several reviews of it (by both Christians and skeptics) The following is typical of them:
In light of this (and other similar reviews), I am left to assume that the book is one of the dozens of Christian apologetic works and that while you found it convincing, it doesn’t offer any absolute “proof” of the validity of Christian mythology. I note that the author went into his own suffering as a part of his path to faith. This is a pattern I have seen many times before – people use faith to alleviate their pain. Some religions are better at this than others, but it says nothing about their veracity. If there is a particularly good argument that you found, please feel free to post it. I mean that sincerely. I am curious how you came to your faith.
#52 Wakefield
Snowflake Babies. So what you are saying is that because some percentage of the blastocysts that were frozen are brought to term, it is better to destroy the rest than to use them in research? I’m not sure I see your point. Also, what does this have to do with the absolute value of life as a moral good?
I notice that you bring up infertility a lot. Are you afraid we are going to run out of people? Because if you are, I would like to put your mind at rest.
#53 Wakefield:
Yes, I am aware that you guys have attacked his study. The other findings that you posted were also interesting. It is after all a correlative study. My point was not that Christianity is bad for society, it was that adopting the idea that “life is the highest moral good” doesn’t necessarily result in a more just and moral society.
Also, none of your links on this post worked for me.
#54 Wakefield:
Ok, this post was long, so I’m going to give my impression of what your main points were:
1) Atheism inexorably leads to evil
2) Without a god to keep us in line there is no real reason to be good.
3) Atheism leads to hedonism (a specific kind of evil)
4) Steven Pinker likes killing babies.
5) Atheism conforms with leftist ideologies and tyranny (two other forms of evil)
6) Some Atheists (like Ann Ryand) manage to be conservative (a good), but this is an exception to the rule.
7) It is impossible to apply skepticism to everything. Therefore skepticism is not a valid approach to finding the truth.
8) In the absence of religion all power will flow to the government (a form of evil)
9) Since Atheists talk about god so much we must secretly believe in god.
10) Without god we will inevitably head toward a violent totalitarian state.
11) People are basically bad.
12) Without the threat of hell, we would all do horrible things.
Wakefield, I have one word for you: Buddhism.
Here is a religious and philosophical tradition that is 2500 years old. It teaches people to be good, compassionate, and disciplined. It is largely evidence-based (other than the belief in reincarnation), although it is not empirical. It is pacifistic. It has (to my knowledge) a lower history of violent behaviors than any western faith. While the religion does contain gods, they are understood to be metaphorical representations of states of mind (anthropomorphisms if you will). It is perfectly possible to be an atheistic Buddhist, and many exist all around the world.
So your whole thesis was disproven by Siddhartha Gautama 500 years before Jesus of Nazareth was born.
Oh yes. It’s not “Democrat” party platforms, it’s “Democratic” party platforms – Me thinks you listen to Rush Limbaugh too much.
# 55 Wakefield
I don’t know what you are referring to.
Ok, in this post, what you are mostly doing is taking the words of atheist writers and using them to demonstrate that atheists want to be “let off the hook” from the moral judgment of the deity.
I think that the reason you interpret these authors in this way is because you seem to believe that man is basically bad. If you assume that man is basically bad, then it is natural to assume that we want out from under the authority of the divine monarch for no other reason than because we want to get away with being naughty.
The points that the authors are making and that you are missing are just this:
What’s wrong with being pelvic? What makes you think that your pelvis doesn’t contain wisdom? What makes you think that the wisdom these men are enjoying begins and ends at their pelvis? Doesn’t it make sense that if you adopt an entirely new world view that it just might effect your sex life? Doesn’t it make sense that if it DOES affect your sex life that you just might want to brag about this to your friends?
I’m afraid your characterization of these authors says more about you than it does about them.
The rest of your post is a continuation of the conflation of atheism/liberalism vis-a-vis Christianity/social conservatism. It makes me wonder what you think of liberal Christians?
Then you take us to the old saw about “atheist Stalinism etc. etc.” Look. Here is a political reality: Christian, atheist, capitalist, communist, it doesn’t matter what your ideology is – if you concentrate too much social power in into the hands of too few people you end up with totalitarianism. You will note that I have only brought up the inquisition to refute the idea that Christianity has always been a culture of life. I have not tried to beat you over the head with the idea that Christianity leads to genocide, even though there are historical precedents for this. The reason I don’t go there is simple. These genocides were not caused by religion. They were caused by a concentration of political power. In EXACTLY the same way, the genocides perpetrated by secular states were also not caused by atheism. They were caused by a concentration of political power. This is the genius of our constitutional republic: the separation of powers.
Of course, religion is very good at rationalizing these genocides. God’s will and all that. But that’s off topic.
An important part of this separation of powers is the separation of church and state. The reason for this is simple. Religious organizations are also political entities. People who think they have god on their side tend to do crazy stupid things and they tend to do them at the bequest of monolithic ideologues. This is the fear that most atheists have – that our nation is going to become a theocracy and the religious nuts are going to nuke the planet.
Considering that pastor Hagee continues to preach his pro-Armageddon agenda, and considering that the only Christians I EVER hear speaking out against him are the liberal Christians, forgive me for not taking your moral outrage at the degenerate morals of liberals too seriously. If you REALLY believe in a culture of life, start a conservative Christian movement to excommunicate Hagee, take away his ministry and de-fund his ministry. Otherwise get off your high horse.
As for your hatred of socialism: You live in a socialist nation. And it’s a good thing too. Get over it.
Let me explain in regard to post-industrial nations :
Free market Capitalism = all property is privatized, all markets are completely deregulated. This will ALLWAYS lead to huge wealth concentrating into the hands of a few (like we have now). This will corrupt the government (no matter what form of government it is), and lead to totalitarianism.
Communism = All wealth is owned by the state. This will always result in the ruling party getting too much power and totalitarianism.
All modern post industrial nations have economies that are in a dynamic equilibrium between these two poles. In the USA we drift closer to true capitalism. Communist Russia managed to get all the way to true communism and it collapsed. We just might be collapsing as well right now, but we shall see.
All modern societies will work out some ever-changing compromise between these two absolutes, or they will die. My impression of you Wakefield, is that you are an ideologue who is wedded to capitalism as the “true, correct, and virtuous” form of economic dogma. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s patoot. This issue is irrelevant to the issue of the absolute moral value of life. Stop changing the subject.
#56 Wakefield:
As for the phenomenalistic language of the bible:
You don’t have to explain to ME about the metaphor and simile of the Bible. You need to explain it to OTHER CHRISTIANS. You must be aware that there are something like 22% of all Americans who think that Jesus is coming back in their lifetime right? Do the words “coocoo for cocoa puffs” mean anything to you? There are LOTS of people who think that the bible is the literal word of god, and therefore every word is literally true. They think that the bible is a science book. Since you are apparently not one of them, could you please explain to your denser brethren what metaphor is?
Please spare me. All everyone is doing is interpreting the bible. That’s the nature of metaphor. Who cares? The thing is a book of bronze-age mythology. All mythologies invite the individual to interact with it on a personal level. That’s the nature of mythology.
Why not interpret something useful, like the nature of your experience. Stop looking at a book for the truth of your soul. Don’t you know it’s not in the book? Any truth you find in that book is not in the book. It’s in you. Hasn’t anyone ever explained that to you before?
So a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute concludes that the dogma of Copernicus’s time wasn’t really all that dogmatic? What a surprise! Forgive me for not sighting her in my next graduate paper.
On the other hand, full props to Christianity for preserving literacy through the dark ages.
It’s true that American science education sucks. And we need to work on it. However the issue is not helped by “teach the controversy” tactics that present the idea that non-scientific ideas like intelligent design should be allowed equal footing in the science class. Personally, I think ID should be taught in the civics class, but that’s the topic of another thread. The reason the ACLU get’s involved in evolution battles is simple. Evolution is the one science that tells us who we are. Because of this, it is in direct competition with the story of genesis for this role in society. As a result of THIS, you Christians are working tirelessly to undermine the constitution and the institution of science. This, and the fact that evolution undermines the entire story of Jesus (by debunking genesis), makes science and the Christianity natural enemies, at least as far as the more dogmatic sects are concerned. These dogmatic sects are large enough, motivated enough and funded enough to disseminate run a lie campaign against evolution and science. Hence the law suits.
Yeah, humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Humans are a species of ape.
The rest of your post goes into the nature of consciousness. I love that subject, but again it’s pretty off topic.
#57 Wakefield:
Not so. Even without free will, I can have the perception of free will and the moralistic responses that a deterministic universe says I must have. But since MUCH smarter people than me have not cracked this problem, I would rather just pretend like we have free will and act accordingly.
It’s only nasty to your ears. It’s a breath of fresh air to mine. One thing that I strongly agree with Dawkins about – it’s time that religion stopped getting a free pass. THAT’s why I use the “bronze-age mythology” line – because I want you Theists to get used to the idea that people are going to challenge your assumptions. I don’t care if I change your mind, I just want you to have to defend your beliefs for a change.
Like the clergy, you mean?
I think that this is EXACTLY the way they see it. I think that you are too defended against their message to understand that they are not trying to take away your rights. Either that or you feel (like many Christians do) that there is no difference between education and indoctrination, and that you therefore have a right to indoctrinate the world using the educational system. This is why secular culture is the standard for our nation. It is free from the agenda of indoctrination. I am sure you don’t agree, but that’s how I see it.
Here is the big difference between secular education and religious indoctrination: A secular education allows you to have whatever faith belief you want. A religious education allways assumes that their belief is the right one. You just don’t like secular education because some of the findings of science have proven your core mythology to be wrong. THAT’S why the conflict between religion and scinece. And even if science doesn’t have the right answer, it has still shown that you have the wrong answer. Genesis vs Evlolution is an excelent example of this.
As for the pundits you mentioned – The radical right has had too loud a voice for the last 15 years. I am relieved to see the liberal media finally playing catch up with Rachael Maddow and Keith Oberman – Listen to them for an hour, and you will know how Rush Limbaugh sounds to us liberals. Also, don’t kid yourself – for every “liberal agenda” law that you whine about there is another “conservative agenda” law for me to whine about – teaching the bible in school is a case in point. Again – we are seeing dynamic tension in our culture between interest groups – not a bad thing over all.
This is true of all religions and all ideologies. Someday, Christianity will fade from the earth. All things end (as the Buddha taught btw). Nothing to complain about. That said, I don’t see it happening in my life time. Mores’ the pity. You Christians have this whole mythology around this issue though – “ OOH, we’re the poor defenseless Christians and were under siege from the big bad world and the forces of Satan!” Give me a break! You can’t get elected to a federal government position without at least PRETENDING that you believe in the invisible man in the sky. This is hardly an underdog position. You guys are doing fine.
Yes, I do know what I’m talking about. You are simply wrong about this. ID really is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” The fact that you don’t recognize this says to me that you really don’t understand how logical positivism works. ID is a hypothesis that cannot be tested, and that presents a conclusion that is not supported by evidence. It fails as a science. It was vetted as a theory and it failed, but instead of sucking it up and doing real science, the Discovery Institute sold it to creationists as a back door into the science classroom for creationism. Do your research – it’s very well documented.
This is only true if he exists. Since there is no evidence that he exists, it IS a violation of the establishment clause. Just substitute the word “Thor” for the word “God” in any of your arguments, and see if it holds water. If not, please. Spare me.
Do you really think that there is ANY chance that America will use atheism as a litmus test for holding public office? If the answer is yes, are you living on the same planet as me?
And it’s a good thing too. We live in a LIBERAL democracy. Without liberalism, you would have no civil rights, no freedom of religion, no free speech, etc. etc. Liberal is a word I am proud to use to identify myself with. I get the impression that what Christians really want is theocracy. Then they can recruit some morality police and kill off all the fags and atheists, just like god would want them to. Thankfully, we are not the Taliban. We have liberalism to thank for keeping this from happening.
Waa Waa Waa!
Stop crying. Believers in your bronze-age mythology control both houses of congress, the presidency, and the judiciary. You have officers using boot camps to promote your religion inside the military. You’re not a god dammed VICTIM, stop crying like one!
What all your whining amounts to in my mind is that you really don’t want a pluralistic society. What it sounds like you really want is a Christian hegemony of power, so that you can create a truly Christian nation. This would not only create tyranny, it would also subvert the constitution. As such it is treasonous. You’re not a traitor are you?
No? Then STOP WHINING!!!!
I hope so. Science and reason need defense from religion.
#58
Are you kidding? This thing’s enormous!
I don’t define people as “real Christians.” If a person calls themselves Christian, that’s good enough for me. I do tend to judge people as “moderate,” “fundamentalist,” or “batshit crazy” in their religious beliefs, but these labels are more my gut impression than any kind of meaningful definition.
As a rule, if you are a dedicated enough to the faith that you would spend the time to write a book about it, then you are at least a “fundamentalist,” if not “batshit crazy.”
I know these are only vague catagories that are born out of my layman’s ignorance, so forgive me if I’m not up on the technical definitions of these categories within the faith. I also realize (when I think about it) that this is unfair, and that there are people who love their faith and who take a liberal or moderate tone in their writing of the book. Also I am aware that there is a mystical tradition within Christianity. But when I’m just kicking around blogs, I don’t feel all that obliged to be long-winded about tossing labels around.
Again, why bother? Why couch it in terms of God – or more specifically – What do you mean by god
But that’s just the problem isn’t it? Ask a hundred people what they mean by god, and you’ll get 100 answers. So I’m asking, you Wakefield, what do you mean by god?
You know, a couple hundred years ago, we didn’t even know that the mind was connected to the brain. When I went to college, we had a vague understanding of the idea that the brain is connected to conciousness. Now we have real time pictures of people working out conscious problems through functional MRI’s.
Don’t knock brain science. It rocks. And it will reveal more about the human condition, the nature of consciousness, and human strategies for happiness, morality and psychological development than your bible ever will. Mark my words.
Of course it will also reveal new methods of social control and torture, but hey, you have to take the bad with the good. But then the bible is useful for social control and torture too, isn’t it?
No no, not reducible to, emergent from.
I think that you are working on wrong assumptions if you are even asking this question. Human moral intuitions are apparent all around you. When you kid says “no fair, she got a bigger piece than me” he is employing a moral calculus that is hard wired into his physiology. We use them all the time. When we violate these moral intuitions we feel guilt, shame etc. When other people violate them we feel anger, fear and moral outrage. All of this is culturally educated, but the foundational response system is biologically programmed, in the same way that the human sexual response system is biologically programmed.
The basic idea here is that human beings operate on a range of biological programs that form behavioral response systems. Take the process of reproduction. You may experience lust as a free floating emotion that you can associate with any good looking woman who comes down the pike. This is one biological program that says “go forth and spread your seed.” Then you fixate on one person, and “fall in love” this program makes you obsess about them, crave their presence and become jealous. Finally once you are in a relationship with them, you feel attachment to them. In this program, you are wanting their companionship, and you feel grief and loss (mourning) if they leave you or die. You feel guilt and shame if you cheat on them.
These emotional response systems are designed to help you reproduce, bond with a specific partner and stay with them long enough to raise a child. These are psychological programs that influence our behavior to serve as effective parents so that our DNA can get passed into the next generation.
These programs are not set in stone. They are culturally influenced, and they also are prone to environmental disruption and distortion. For example, it is common in this culture for men to have a “mid-life crisis” and start cheating with a younger woman. This doesn’t coincide with any particular age for the man. Instead, it coincides with the onset of menopause for the woman! HER midlife is HIS crisis! His biological program says “find a fit reproductive partner.” So if his marriage isn’t strong, and if his community isn’t coercive, he weighs the benefit of a new partner against the cost of the grief of leaving his old partner, and off he goes. Is this how things should be? No, probably not, but it is how they ARE. If you want to build a more moral society, doesn’t it help to know this stuff? I think it does.
Now my point in explaining these psychological programs around reproduction is not to get you off on another rant about sexuality. My point is that we HAVE psychological programs wired into us, and many of our moral intuitions work in just this sort of way. It is the business of evolutionary psychology to uncover these programs. It’s a fascinating field of study – I highly recommend it.
Peter Singer, Steven Pinker… you can always find an author who you don’t agree with and then find a passage that you can take out of context to twist into painting him as a horrible human being. If you want to play that game, please do it somewhere else, this post is too damn long as it is.
I never said that. I said that GOD is a projection – an anthropomorphism. Morality is real. It’s just not subject to absolutist approaches to pinning it down – If it was, Plato or one of those guys would have figured it out years ago. It’s a way of relating with and interacting with the world. I would like to say something more profound than that, but frankly I’m too tired and irritable from writing for this long.
That’s all for tonight. I’ll work on the rest later.
October 20, 2008 @ 10:45 pmThe COMMENTARY was from Nancy Pearcy. The findings were not.
The Bible does NOT in point of fact make cosmological commentary about geocentrism.
The fact that this smear is widespread, as with the flatearthers and the reality of this is ignored, makes it no less an issue.
We actually live in a Federal Republic. And it is untrue the minus your definnition, we’d revert to the Taliban. That’s just nonsensical. The word “liberal” is no longer associated with an ideology that identifies the issue of freedom, as any of these jackals are more than itching to enact speech codes, limites on religion, and economic limitations always putativley on behalf of some higher cause. In the world of Margaret Sanger and Paul Blanchard the “liberal” part has little meaning back to its Latin roots, and actually via the awful public schools actually means something more along the lines of advocacy of socialism. The fact that the American people are irritatingly pragmatic and have resisted this is not the same as saying it never occurs.
Meanwhile, in the holy name of the loins, on to enriching warlords with latex, but largely ignoring the sanctified mosquito (given high cotton status by Rachel Carson and the “liberal” enviro nuts), dysentary and malaria are to be given free reign.
October 21, 2008 @ 8:47 amI can find them all too easily. Which IS horrible.
As they ARE horrible. It’s just that Susan Smith gets placed in cuffs. Mere advocacy of a return to Roman times that the Christians nixed gets you status.
October 21, 2008 @ 8:49 amPaul I just clicked on every single one of the links to see if there was an error. There was not.
That might work for some people claiming to “investigate” the world at large. But that’s not good enough for the purposes of real definitions.
October 21, 2008 @ 8:54 amNo. Like the modern political state that is emerging in the West. For this one I sternly recommend Mark Steyn’s analysis of the craggly neck state of affairs in the West, its loss of cultural confidence, and how this can directly be tied to the so-called “liberal” state.
And if you don’t see this then you’re an advocate of this kind of Nanny State tyranny, or simply are not that much of an advocate of “freedom” as you claim al the time.
Since you think utilitarianism is the same thing as morals, that would be about right–and inevitable. These handy chain of event lists you’ve come out with that John turned around (and likewise, demonstrated that anything can be proven in that line of thinking in the moral realm) are further indication of this.
As to pelvic as knowledge. It is not. It is mere desire. Which is not valid as an argument. One thing you’re doing here in this case and some of the other terms is the automatic default assumption that the highest good is Epicurianism. Let not your heart be troubled. Christianity, unlike the common mythology (as with the flat earth and geocentrism, these tend to sprout up from time to time), Christians are not anti-sex any more than anti-food or anti-sunlight. But there is a context to enjoying either. Food is great, but is it worth having heart surgery and putting a pin in your femur to stand up to your own bulk? Is sunburn and skin cancer from UV worth the price? Christians are ANTI-PROMISCUITY.
For all their alleged “nuanced” ways of seeing the “shades of grey”, the atheist types never seem to “get” this.
But the main point is the same. A rebellion that allegedly starts with some ratio-centric from of reasoning, hilarisouly, ended up doing years ago for the big cheese types in the atheist movement as it did for you, apparently. It went from an intellectual animus against God to just simply “I don’t like what that creed has to say about my habits.”
In some cases this might be a legitimate complaint.
In some cases not. I’m sure NAMBLA thinks they are being “put upon” by the cops and unfairly targeted by words as well as deeds.
But passions and desire and more than utilitarianism are arguments for anything one way or another.
October 21, 2008 @ 9:07 amThat’s laughable nonsense.
We have True Believers at those levels, but as nutcase Ruth Ginsberg will show at her level and congressional encounters handily demonstrate, the belief system with whatever else they claim is solidly in line with belief in government as the final arbiter of human values and its own increasing paunch and prestige.
And while you claim morals are “real”, elsewhere you seemed to have indicated they are based on emotive responses or based on some utilitarian input from incremental biological processes and “ick” factors.
Not good enough.
Utilitarianism can be used to demonstrate anything. So can emotion, or emotive responses, or claims about human behavior that hail from the distant past.
Speaking of that, the issue of consciousness with apes very much was germain to the conversation. The reason is that genetics is not all. I explained it before. This issue is what separates with REAL separation, and the most important one–from the animal kingdom. ALL the animal kingdom. As Chomsky and Oller have shown, this gulf is not surmountable in incremental evolutionary steps, and language ability is innate.
October 21, 2008 @ 9:17 amFree from indocrination???? WHAT???!!!
My God, man. Beauracracy breeds its own infections.
Surely post-office and local DMVs are not out model here!
And beyond the question of efficiency:
Are you under the impression that the State cannot, wouldnot, or has not indoctrinated anyone? Socialist claptrap and smarmy pieties flow from the public schools like Niagara Falls.
A few quick glances at the official websites of almost any school district in the good old USA and the sites of teachers unions shows this to be false.
As do the numerous writings going all the way back to John Dewey and the handcuffing of homeschoolers, the attempts to outlaw the same in some areas. On and on it goes. The very fact that we are about to place in office a liar who gets away cleanly with confuting “tax break” with what are actually handouts indicates that most Americans can’t do math or understand terminology.
Contra your many loud claims, if you truly believed in a Constitutionally based society, rather than this confusing multi-culti mush called “liberal democracy”, you’d know by now (unlike Dennett et al) that the Constitution also guarantees rights to more, and belief in more, than just government power and prowess and “public” (RE: government sponsored) education.
We don’t revert to government power to make our cars and computers for us, nor is there any lack of consumer choice in houses and paper towels. Nor do we have, due to its “importance” to society, government sponsored groceries. Should the government raise our kids for us, then? Are we to warehouse the kiddies like all totalitarian regimes do all day and feed them milkwater crap about responsive government when so obviously this is not the case? It’s not working.
We do have government sponsored banks and the ill-concieved push to government sponsored health care. Much to our fool. Not a good idea. Not good to have to wait 18 months for an MRI. All the more the point.
It is absolutely knee-slapping hilarious to claim “plurality” and “neutrality” about alleged “public education” when the documentation on that being REAL indoctrination of its own flavor going back over a century is well-documented.
The NEA is hardly a friend to freedom and free citizenry and recommends all manner of socialism and Nanny-Statism and coddling of the citizenry. Just like Obamaramadingdong.
They and other “public education” advocacy groups hardly represent either the mainstream OR the notion that competing ideas are welome. Even secularists like Thomas DiLorenzo have noted this. The Cato institute and the libertarians are hardly bible thumpers but have well noted the doctrinaire and idiotic notions of the education advocacy groups generally more concerned with their benefit packages more than the kids.
The Constitution is not about “that which Paul and some others find needs to be transitioned in society.”
Just as the Founders knew that a Separation clause was necessary for the proper relationship to the citizenry on religious issues, today many scholars recognize all too well other separations are needed.
The government schools did not have either a noble history and it is also myth they were “always” advocated by all the Founders. This came about as the agitation of ideological types like Horace Mann who felt government needed to “regulate” the will of the people by force. Organizations that have in the past praised the glory of the USSR as the progressive force in history or suggest no big deal about having kids into early promiscuity are not for me.
You might take a peek at John Taylor Gatto on this one, who recommends just disbanding what we call “public education” altogether and allowing true parental choice. It might sound counterintuitive, but sometimes you get more done with less money and somewhat less ideology and state power.
You mentioned competing ideas? Time to make that real on some other fronts as well. Unless you think government is do make like Sweden and handle our lives for us.
http://www.freedomofeducation.net/
October 21, 2008 @ 9:45 amPaul, whoever wrote the review about Josh McDowell’s book, is completely uninformed. His work is thoroughly researched and his footnotes to the primary sources are comprehensive. Sounds like he struck a nerve with an atheist.
October 21, 2008 @ 10:08 am#59 Wakefield
So it’s ok for authorities to decide that you should get a measles shot, but not an HPV shot? Why? Because HPV is only transmittable through the most intimate contact? Even if your daughter stays a virgin until marriage, can you be sure her husband is a virgin? Can you be shure he will never cheat? Why take that risk? Or is this really about wanting to use the risk of cervical cancer to control your daughter’s sex life?
We can get into an argument about the role of the state in healthcare, but given that the state is already involved in mandatory inoculations, there is no reason not to include this in the panel of shots. This is the same twisted logic that says it’s better to burn blastacysts than it is to use them to save lives.
Really? You really think that the exponential growth the global population every 20 years isn’t happening huh? Wow. I bet you think that global warming and mass extinction are myths too, huh? I bet you think they are all perpetrated by the liberal media in order to scare us into allowing our taxes to be raised. I just have one question for you – What evidence would convince you that global over-population is a problem?
This is very enlightened of you – too bad the less educated members of your faith don’t see it that way. Wouldn’t it be better to start preaching birth control at this point?
Out-breading the other guy has always been a tried and true way of spreading ideology. And for sure, the more ignorant and poor you are the more children you are likely to have. It is a sobering thought. Still, ideas can spread faster than people can breed, so it is not the death knell you paint it as.
One other part of this reality is that poor people reproduce more than rich people, which means that the poor are out-breading the rich. This means that over the generations more and more wealth get’s concentrated into the hands of the rich. It also means that poverty is intergenerational, and that it begets more and more poverty. The implication of this is that if you Christians really want to follow Christ’s example, and work to defeat poverty, you MUST support safe, free, birth control for everyone, since one of the most effective way of fighting poverty is to give women control over their reproductive abilities.
You’re, right. There are other problems to solve that don’t involve sex. Let’s just let the sexually transmitted diseases run rampant. After all, people who screw around deserve to die.
Of COURSE we should also fight other diseases, and you know, if DDT was the best solution by cost-benefit analysis, I would support it. I frankly don’t know enough about DDT/Malaria to have an opinion on that one. However, just because some liberal ideologues stand in the way of progress on that issue, is no excuse for the fact that religious ideologues stand in the way of fighting AIDS. Pointing the finger at wrong-headed liberal thinking doesn’t make your own thinking less wrong-headed.
#60 John
Ok, point taken. I’m not going to sit here and say that Christianity has no redeeming qualities. It would not have survived if that were true.
Yes, I know. Still, the human sacrifice of Jesus was necessary to secure your absolution from original sin because….?
Personally I have always thought that the resurrection of Jesus cheapened his sacrifice – I mean who’s more virtuous:
A) The spiritual teacher who is willing to die for his beliefs
Or
B) The spiritual teacher who is willing to die for his beliefs, knowing he will get the divine mulligan of resurrection?
If Jesus really did exist, it seems to me that all the magic tricks that his followers attributed to him only distract from the value of his teaching. But hey, I’m an atheist, what do I know?
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I guess I misunderstood you when you started this thread with:
But I see where you are going with this.
I feel like you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I’m not saying that infanticide is anything but tragic. What I’m saying is that people do what people do in the process of making moral judgements about their situation. This example was meant to illustrate the point that even when engaging in actions that I personally consider immoral, the people doing the action are still engaged in a moral calculus.
Oh really? So if the stem cell’s DNA is unique it is immoral to use it, and it is better to burn it, but if the stem cell’s DNA is coming from an adult, then it’s fine to use it. This sounds like moral befuddlement to me. Moral befuddlement is a term referring to the fact that people often experience moral outrage for reasons that they cannot readily explain. It is part of the whole “moral intuition” theory of evolutionary psychology.
The Nascent life argument only works until we have perfected cloning techniques – after that, all cells are nascent life. Besides, no one has touched my point about how you might be able to harvest stem cells and still grow a snowflake baby. That sort of muddies the water doesn’t it? This is how technology puts us into moral situations that we are not ready for – as it has always done btw.
That said, you don’t get out of struggling with these moral dilemmas by shouting “culture of life!” and sticking your head in the sand.
No no, close, but not quite:
1) We are programmed by evolution to distinguish between our camp and “the other” who may represent a danger to us.
2) Atheist gets fed up with always being the “other,” since religion is all about the “in group.”
3) Being a member of the “out group” becomes a part of Athiest’s identity.
4) Atheist finds an “in group” consisting of other atheists on line. He bonds with subculture, and feels nourished and supported thereby.
5) Atheist gradually realizes that being a member of the “out group/subculture” is actually a resource that he has to offer the “in group.” He seeks interaction with “in group” in order to test this idea.
6) Blog commenter invents a scenario which suggests that being pro-life is the result of pre-programmed evolutionary impulses combined with enculturation (proves is too strong a word).
7) Having successfully attacked the other and thereby carried out the will of his sub-culture, his hypothalmus floods with pleasurable sensations.
8) The sense of pleasure is generalized as he reflects that his small action, attacking theists, has served the greater good.
This seems more on-target to me.
I don’t mind getting “in your face” and/or offending you if it gets my point across. I hope that I have not ONLY been a jerk. I think that my posts have been long enough and varied enough that you can see that I am not so easily written off. That said, how much of your emotional response to my post was me being a jerk, and how much was that my argument hit home?
Epologue:
Ok, at this point I would like to wrap up with my take on this whole discussion so far – I especially want to pick on Wakefield’s long diatribes, as they are an excellent example of what I am getting at.
Here is the problem that I have with Christianity:
When you look at the story of Genesis, the primary insight of the story is the insight of duality. You have God makes the world, he creates Adam and from him makes Eve. This is dualism. God gives man dominion over the animals and lets him name them, this is dualism. They eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, another dualism. They experience original sin, and are separated from God, another dualism. So you can see the mythology of this story is the mythology of dualism.
Then you get to the burning bush, and Moses talks to God who says “I am that I am.”
This is NOT dualism – Some Jewish traditions say that naming god is blasphemy. This is because you cannot name the transcendent. Yet you Christians go ahead and name him anyway. You name him Jesus.
The whole personal relationship with a personal savior thing is still all about dualism. God is a PERSON to you, Jesus is a PERSON to you. This is all about relating to yourself as an “I” and the universe as an “other.”
So your whole mythology is lop-sided. You simply ignore that we are all interconnected. Worse, you preach about “origional sin” which is the doctrine of seperateness. Heck Richard Dawkins understands that much about spirituality! He’s one of the least spiritual guys around, but he still gets the fact that every molecule of your body has been replaced since you learned how to ride a bicycle. We are all interconnected. This is what spiritual experience is largely about.
Wakefield, when I read your posts, what I kept coming across is your dogmatic dualism. You seem to think that:
Christianity, capitalism, democracy, and life are good and they all go together somehow.
And that:
Atheism, communism, socialism, and death are bad and they all go together somehow.
And gosh darn it, you are on the side of GOOD!
This is a dogmatic position that is born out of dualism. It is a position that defines the world in black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. It is the spiritual tradition of the Abrahamic faiths, and it is true.
But it is not the whole truth.
The transcendent is also true. And when I am aware of how I am connected with all things. When I am aware of the unlimited potentiality of myself and of the universe, I find myself compelled to act in a way that is moral, not because some divine monarch (a duality) has made me, but because I am only hurting myself by hurting others.
I am HE as you are HE as you are me and we are all together.
This is transcendence. This is the insight that allows me to interact with evil and transform it, both in myself and in others. It is also the insight that allows me to realize that even death is ok, because it’s just another transformation. Christian morality says “life is sacred, this is the highest morality.” The transcendent says “Life is. Death is. All is sacred.”
This is the insight of eastern religions (which admittedly have their own problems). It is an insight that is woefully absent from the Christian religion, and it is why I hate the ideology of Christianity, and the doctrine of original sin. It’s like you guys are thinking with one lobe tied behind your back.
I mean that literally – your left hemisphere is linear, dualistic and language based – you guys hold onto linear accounts of prophesy from genesis through Armageddon, you literally talk to god (using the languge centers of your brain on the left hemisphere) and your primary way of looking at the world is dualistic.
This is one of the reasons so many of you think that the bible is litterally true – It’s true/it’s false – see? Another duality!
The right hemisphere is transcendent – it knows no time, it is intuitive and it recognizes itself as part of the infinite pattern of the universe.
I think that when Keith heard the voice saying that everything was going to be all right, it was his right hemisphere sending a signal to his language centers letting him know that the intuitive, pattern-seeking part of his brain had recognized that the situation would work itself out.
See? God was inside you all along.
coo coo cachoo.
October 21, 2008 @ 10:08 amI know of no one in the Christian community who advocates some Walton sized family of 15 people saying good night. Most have about the same number of kids we do. Three or less. Which is barely above the statistical level of replacement (which actually has to be higher than 2 per se).
Yes–overpopulation is a myth. At least in the plupart of man’s overall influence on the planet. I would not tell a skinny man (West) to lose pounds, or a fat guy (third world )to keep downing the burgers.
The “convincing” part that it would be real would be something other than Paul Erlich and his hysteria using this as a crutch for government control.
This would involve isolating all political, ideological, and cultural factors to “test” if an area is suffering inordinately due to this. This is difficult, as so many factors are involved. The experience in the Asian Dragon economies, according to PT Baur and other demographers, is the opposite. These economies are powerful and yet the nations themselve are crowded to degrees Americans would certainly find almost obnoxious. The other part of this Paul is that economic development always has to work hand in hand in improving conditions. After all, there are situations of subsistence level farming in non-industrialized parts of the world that in the past could not have held a population for an entire continent of over 10,000. But no one is advocating a return to those days other than the radical groups who think nature is sacrosanct. Nature can and is in some cases wholesale DEATH. Even the beautiful parts.
Such is life.
And you are correct about that ideology thing: Everything begins–and thus ends-with demographics. Something I can’t get keith to understand when it comes to the eventual extinction of the West.
Issues like the Laodicean hellfire called “global warming” are damned by some not due to some incremental rise in temperature (about.7 degrees over the last century), but rather the thin association with carbon, which is often contradicted in the fossil record. For another thing, this seems to be yet another highly ambitious political and ideological project more than a real danger physically. The actual danger, and horrible hypocrisy, comes from those government agencies and outreaches that seek ever more ways of regulating industry (that horrid thing–what will it do next, eat our kids!!!???) and personal behavior.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801248.html
There is, after all, more to human life than sex. One hopes that polititicans and the deep thinkers will figure this out at some point.
Yes, there ARE mass extinctions in the past–and we’ll soon see one in the not-to-distant future. But it is not the Ground Sloth or the poison dart frog I have in mind. And contra nutcases like Paul Erlich, it is not about running out of resources so much as running out of cultural confidence. But then that’s the legacy of this milkwater socialism of the Liberal State. A superior state not quite superior enough to even defend itself, as Mark Steyn pointed out, against a darker and more savage world.
That’s not what anyone has said here. What was SAID, and the article I pointed to, was that this issue has been pitched hard for political and ideological reason, mostly on the behest of the AIDS lobby when so much more has been lacking. AIDS spending obvisouly costs more due to the accessories that go along with it. They are not cheap. True. But for half the price 15 other diseases could be brought to a gringding, screeching stop.
The issue was one of making sure some issue stays in the forefront. While others are deemed less important, just as with Gustave the killer croc now claiming children’s lives when all it would take is 45 cents for a bullet and a 30.6 to put him to an end. But then, like Rachel Carson’s comapsh on the lowly mosquitoe as on par with human beings, and falling well in line with Singerian ethics, he swims free in the Zambizi river system.
Dogmatic or not, life is kinda like that sometimes.
The reasons why I showed before. So enough of the core reasoning.
Actually, more precisely, what you’re seeing is my reiteration of what many sociologists have well noted. I referenced that also. These are the trends.
It’s tough crap, but there you have it. Just as I would not be trustworthy in making loans to people working at Boo Boo burger as did Fannie Mae for some higher calling. There are exceptions to this, but those exceptions demonstrate the general rule.
Granted, trending is not always valid, as when statisticians deny there is at the professional baseball level any kind of “hitting slump”, and so forth. But trending analysis IS the analysis of the real world. Demographers and sociologists and political scientists have known this ever since the first cuniaform writing, pretty much.
So far I find that the trending and thus the association is valid.
As far as HPV, I realize it might be some form of convenience for 12 year old girls to just get this out of the way. Certainly the information should be known. This is an issue for the parents, the child, and the doctor to discuss at length in an office. Yes, there is a danger from the other marriage partner. But this issue is more than handled by a visit to the doctor by both prospective partners.
Surely the family doctor can handle this question. Else medical schools are not doing their job. You can never be sure of ANYTHING. But since I don’t know the particulars of screening, that is a question for a physician and his staff.
I think they can field that ball.
As to flu shots. I never said they should be forced either. Unless you can demonstrate a public health emergency. In the case of flu it is possible the CDC needs to get involved and adovate such. But flu is not very selective. HPV is transmitted generally by choice encounters. Same for AIDS, where the lie is fgiven that this beast just selects people like a bolt out of the blue sky.
October 21, 2008 @ 10:45 amI think that’s easy to say from our perspective – we don’t have to do it. Being crucified is a whole step on from just dieing for his beliefs.
Have you ever looked into the historicity of Jesus? Is it something you are interested in? I suspect that it’s something you would find interesting, at the least.
You could be right, but I don’t think so. Everything being alright was the least likely scenario, I had no reason to hope and absolutely no way of knowing that the particular scanner he needed would somehow suddenly become available. The ‘voice’ as I may have said, was like a thought being in my mind that wasn’t my own.
Incidentally, I think you’re right about duality being a problem in many minds, not just Christian, but then what would I know?
I am the egg man.
October 21, 2008 @ 11:44 amI don’t want to keep doing this, as I need to get back to my life.
However I do have a couple of responses I want to make before I bow out of this conversation:
Well, I don’t see things that way (not surprisingly I suppose).
Christianity is a bronze-age death cult
Capitalism is a system for concentrating wealth into the hands of a few. It has the beneficial side effect of generating wealth as well – so while it’s not a perfect system it is the best we have come up with so far – however it needs government regulation in order to prevent robber barons from emerging. Our current system is NOT capitalism – it is corporate socialism – we privatize profit and we socialize risk, and the cool-aid drinking ditto-heads on the right keep voting against their self-interest, as the corporately owned media tells them to do.
Democracy is a system of government that may include capitalism, but that usually is built on socialism.
Life is a complex dance of ongoing biochemical processes. These processes all end. This is called “death.”
See? They are not really all that related to each other.
Wakefield, there is a basic assumption that I think that you are making that is wrong here. And the basic assumption is this:
I think that you think that government is bad and privatized wealth is good. I think so too, to a point. The problem here is corporatocracy. Once people get piles of money that are big enough, they begin to be able to corrupt democracy simply through their sheer amount of wealth. They control the media, and use it to influence your vote. They buy influence on both sides of the isle etc. etc. Something like 80% of all Americans believe that they are not represented by our government and that the special interests are the ones who are really in control of things.
I agree with them. The problem is the ONLY way to wrest control away from these moneyed special interests is socialism. The only force that has the power to do so is government.
Democracy is built on a system of checks and balances. Capitalism is a “winner-take-all” poker game. Right now we are facing the consequences of 20 years of corporate welfare, and the crisis has gotten so big that even a died in the wool ideologue like you has to acknowledge that our tax dollars are being used to stack the deck against us to the benefit of wall street investors.
There are no checks and balances on corporate power:
-Corporate farms control our food supply
-If you want your civil rights, well, find a job somewhere else.
-The military is primarily used to police corporate interests, NOT national security.
-Our money supply is owned by a private company, that is run without government oversight. The people who own a controlling interest of the stock do not make their identities public.
Does this sound like democracy to you? Because it sounds like fascism to me.
It has been said that when fascism returns it will not come dressed in a swastika. It will be waving an American flag and holding the bible.
Ask yourself this: Rush Limbaugh makes millions of dollars per year telling people how to vote. Do you think that small business interests who pay his salary, or humongous corporate interests?
How about Shawn Hannity? Ann Coulter?
Our democracy has been corrupted, not by the educated elite, but by the corporate elite. I am not sure we can get it back. I frankly don’t have much faith in the Democratic party, I just know that all we have gotten from Republicans is a concentration of wealth at the top. In fact, under republican rule, I have more education than either of my parents, yet I enjoy a lower standard of living than they did, even though my mom didn’t work, and I live in a two-income household. If I thought he had a chance of winning, I would vote for Ron Paul.
Ideologues like YOU, Wakefield, are exactly the kind of rube that the corporate elite need in order to hold onto power. You see things in black and white and believe that our culture is crumbling because gay men want to get married. You think that “multi-culty mush” actually MATTERS! You are just the voter base and your issues are just the smoke screen they need to control the levers of power without restraint.
Christianity with its promise of reward after you die, is a really handy propaganda tool for the status quo, don’t you think? Opiate of the masses indeed!
I am not enough of an economist to know why these forces are at work in our lives – maybe it’s over population – there is just less wealth to go around. But I don’t think so – I think it’s because the rich have successfully stacked the deck to make sure that the middle class gets bled dry slowly enough that we don’t notice it. Like a frog that is cooked in water that is slowly brought to a boil. I think that this is what Newt Gingrich and the K-street project had in mind all along.
We need to take power away from the rich. I don’t care if it IS socialist. It’s the only hope our democracy has. So if Obama wants to spread the wealth around, I say “It’s about damn time!”
You may feel free to rant and call me a communist if you like.
Keith:
Pleased to meet you egg man!
Of course, since my name is Paul,
I am the walrus! Coo coo cachoo!
October 22, 2008 @ 8:58 amOh yea, one more point:
The richest 5% pay something like 57% of our taxes. Which sounds like alot does’t it?
But that same richest 5% own something like 90% of the wealth in the country.
90%!
No wonder I can’t put my kids through school!
Anyway, shouldn’t they be paying 90% of the taxes?
October 22, 2008 @ 9:06 amRush Limbaugh nor anyone else in radio tell people how to vote. He can make suggestions. That’s all anyone can do.
And if fascism is to return, it is doubtful it would be anything other than the kind of tyranny designed by governing authories in the guise of saving us from ourselves. Even good libs like William Henry III understood this. The cultural trend is not along the lines of any religion anyhow. Apparently you’re content to parrot these things from Skepty Net, as this sounds strikingly familier, amost as if you’re cutting and pasting entire paragraphs from some places.
Socialism does not address the power imbalances you detest, Paul. It enhances them. This is what F A Hayek meant by the process called The Road to Serfdom.
This indicates a level of “FAITH” in government that even the worst knuckle-draggers from the Bronze Age would not trust in. Of course I addressed the issue of B.A. texts earlier. They weren’t all that dumb after all.
It is those economies living in the moribund demographic decline and coddled from cradle to grave that have the faith problem, not the culturally confident members of the religous.
The Rich: Should they pay more? Says who?
And will that money be flowing to the “people” or more likely to government coffers?
Well I’m not going to delve much into the class warfare ideology you have. Call me an ideologue if that makes the day sunnier, but I’m not more than you or the Obama’s children’s chorus. Envy is a dreadful way to live life. And not usually productive.
If the rich really paid 90% of all the taxes we’d find things are not quite as glamorous as you might think. Some nations have tried this, and the economics of this tend to make an environment where investment lags those nations that don’t have such stringent rates. In any case, we are talking about individual incomes. There is some overlap, yes, and this is important to keep in mind when the Messiah thinks that 250K a year is some fabulous treasure. For many small businesses who file on an individual basis, it is not. The US already has one of the world’s highest CORPORATE tax, and when you combine this with the ad valorum, property, and other taxes at the local and state level, some are getting hit (especially businesses) more than is commonly acknowledged.
If the goal is to enhance the wealth of the commonweal, the common man, and all other claims about social justice and prosperity, then it would seem logical to increase investment across the board, not just what some nations have tried with various “industrial planning” boards or manipulations with the tax code. I think of Ireland’s strategy in lowering corporate rates to successfully bring in more business.
I don’t have faith in “democracy”-which is just the same tyranny as others, using what Robert Ringer called “the mysterious multiplier complex.”
Likewise it is noted by more than one person that Hamas voted to have terrorists at the forefront of their fight against Israel, and positions are appointed based on the numbers of kids blown to bits. A real baby boom over there, ya might say. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses, at best.
I DO believe in responsive and representative government. But something more high minded that being taken care of all your life or having government play one group against another.
In the age of coddling, and the rise in the workforce of the PC “trophy kids”, for whom the world should comfort them and make them feel special at all turns with no struggle unless the bills are to be paid by someone else, we’ll soon end up—as Europe has—with Euro-dee vs. Euro-dum for candidates. It’s true that life sounds famulous if all you have to decide is what to eat and wear and the work week is 27 hours. But for the generation under socialism this lasts, before the demographics and math catch up and the rich just cash in and quit, you actually LOSE representative government.
Lousy decisions are not manifestly better due to the collective decisions of a moronic nature (like putting a man in office who gets songs sung to him and who is the front man for the hippy crowd), than if by ONE man. Tyranny is tyranny. By one or many.
So yes, in that sense, I’m an ideologue. Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. The consequences of power in government of all aspects of life usually has bad consequences. Even for some “good” notions.
Yes, Paul. DDT is almost notoriously El Cheapo. And since its ban, the death toll in the Third World has been rising to the millions. That might not disappoint Paul Ehrlich and the pothead brigades who support people like Obama thinking he’ll really “stick it” to big baddy badass chemical corporations, but its not so good news to families who’ve lost their children. I see no evidence that they care for or love their children any less than we do, and our condescension aside, since the sales pitch is “real” science these days, its high time to apply some forms of it.
DDT was not shut down for scientific reasons. It was shut down for leftist environmentalist hysteria reasons. Rising ocean levels and the loss of beachfront property due to global warming might be annoying in Miami and Bangladesh, but would be gradual at worst, and pales in comparison to the vastly more horrid conditions of grinding poverty of subsistence living among dangerous predators that could be vanquished with market economics introduced to the world’s backwaters and proper hygiene and technology. That’s how you lower population overall and defeat poverty. Not by preaching to traditional societies with no other context provided and use forced sterilization (as was done in India) or wag fingers at cultures where agriculturally “extra hands” make the difference in crop yields. Whether we like it or not, and regardless of the doubtful attempts by either candidate to stick to their guns on issues like nuclear, and seeing that solar and wind are what is called “too diffuse” to make much difference, it seems that petroleum and coal burning (as the Chinese know) will be part of our future for quite some time to come.
The data on all this are fairly clear at this point as much as anything could ever be.
Public secular education…… the standard? Standard of WHAT?
Standard of how not to educate the kiddies, perhaps. That’s a lousy standard, at best. Certainly not any kind of Blue Ribbon standard.
If you’re truly interested in “real” science and combine that word with “education”, you might like to gander at the way the entire Democrat party and most “learned” liberals are basically in hock to both the unions and the trial lawyers. Both groups are scam artists. Unions, and the “public education” front (the NEA is the planet’s largest union) help explain why American education is utterly atrocious and needs to be at least divested from any kind of government oversight. It was not designed to be under this level of ideological control, and this is only the case in the last 100 years or so. How boring if everyone thought alike with the bile they generate from the vapid, thoughtless products they churn out every June. People who ultimately can’t manage their own checkbooks, but somehow manage to be gettin’ the goody on managing someone else’s. Another reason the American Idol crowd likes the Messiah from Hawai-ah. It’s really that simple at this junction in history. People trained by the public schools to have no greater horizon in life than immediate self-gratification and tying up the lines at the curb store scratching off those moronic lotto tickets are about to place a man in power who has his backing from smelly hippies who grew up and started to write. To their eternal credit (and I give it where due), while they could not manage the world of business and hated that realm anyhow, they mastered the art of communications. That’s what you do without real world encounters with the mind turned to psychedelic cheese. You squeeze yourself into academia and preach to the educrat choir. Businessmen don’t generally do a good job in defending themselves as they have to actually work for a living and don’t have the time to piddle with ideology, even if they depend on what the forefathers wrought. As with covering the tab of the goof who gobbled 50 chicken wings in one sitting at the Top China Buffet I had the distinct displeasure of witnessing a few years ago, someone still has to pay for the government’s increasing paunch.
No sooner than the feminist scolds get done asking about Sarah Palin’s foreign policy insights than their blinkered brains can’t wrap around the fact that the Russians never invaded Obama’s political home turf of Chicago lately either. Some of us fired a warning shot across the bow of the MSM, but they didn’t hear it or see it.
But that’s OK, since the graft will now flow as……”tax breaks”…. to millions of Americans who …..never paid taxes. Looks like we need to beef up on math, too. I’d say that was a rather novel approach to mathematics. We are NOT a democracy, and some decisions are not up for grabs in democratic manner, including the pocketbook. We are a representative republic.
Time we start behaving like one. It is not up to government to pick the winners and losers in the market any more than it should be using the labyrinth tax code to regulate people’s behaviors. Same for public education. It’s farcical and everyone knows it. Having the will to do something about it is another issue. (Meanwhile, I guess the job creation program will be social workers and DMV employees. Lovely).
Astonishing. But a “doing something about it” would do more for science (and more importantly the APPLIED sciences, like engineering and innovation vastly more important to the nation’s health) than drawings of hairy protohumans by kindergartners, than any pay hike for teachers. That’s not the problem anyhow. The problem is the presentation.
On the legal front, one can only laugh at the true junk science supported by the trial lawyers and their numerous plaintiffs grafting the public. John Edwards, the affair ridden scam artist du jour who almost shut down the Ob-Gyn industry in some states due to massive lawsuits, comes to mind. Wow, what courtroom theatrics. Jeremiah Wright and his psychotic G-Damn America has nothing on this tent preacher. He gets a free pass from the major media. Interesting. Turns out his brand of junk science, as with the lawsuits again Dow Corning over breast implants and mercury preservative-based vaccines causing autism (also false) was also a courtroom pity session that played more on emotion than real science. He blamed lack of rapid caesarian sections on cerebral palsy, against all known medically established evidence then and now. He won cases anyway, playing, as we see effective elsewhere, to the envy and class warfare crowd. Ring a bell with Joe the Plumber and Obama’s rebuke of needing to spread wealth around? This is a case of class warfare gone to the paneled walls of the courts. And looks like since Joe got a rectal probing 20 times more investigatory and Obama’s past connections to bomb tinkerers and radicals hailing from Chicago’s underground Southside, it appears as some have warned that we’re entering a new age of vengeance against citizens by the media. We know more about Palin’s pregnant teen daughter Bristol than we do Obama’s interactions with Bill Ayers. But you see, the way I see things, if the questioning of the old Messiah was prescient and needed from a healthy brand of Skepticism, certainly this is true of the New Messiah. Nothing wrong with “change”–just so long as its more than what jingles around in the pocket. Where are our media watchdogs, who believe in “free speech”?
Joe the Plumber found out the hard way the mistake other are not about to make with Obama. (Lesson from Obama campaign and the MSM: Watch your mouth).
And if you don’t like “religion”, keep CAREFULLY in mind that there are more than a few types commonly taught in school. In fact the public schools (suckers!) are the high priests of State worship, historically the most damaging kind. The Democrat machine coming to power sounds fun to the elites now. Surely I’d agree with some observers who think this confluence of events is not accidental. And surely the Republicans haven’t done their job and mucked things up almost to the same degree as the Dems in Congress. But, to the credit of the evil Repubs, they aren’t generally making illegal what used to be legal not a few years ago. And yeah, they take seriously the idea that Iran’s Little Adolph means business. The pundits behind Obama are more the problem than he is. I can’t fault many of the voters, except that I am reminded of the fact that some people should simply not even bother.
Oh yeah, Obama’s got that Old Timey Religion. The crowds faint and swoon. Chris Matthews has to fan himself after getting tingles up the leg. Very impressive. And no doubt Jeremiah Wright can sling sweat all the way to third row!
Now it appears from what you’ve said so far that you’re just nonplussed about the pending illegality of homeschooling, of guns, the banning of certain speech that does not conform to Manhattan coffee shop rumination, and the inculcation of socialism in the public schools and the rewriting of American History. Apparently, the lies told about the Scripture on other fronts from the past don’t seem to matter. And since the links suddenly never seem to “work” after I look at them and test them anyhow, and its not a site administrator problem on either end, I can only assume here that you’ve taken the tack that investigation on these matters is of little importance. I asked rhetorically about a biblical reference on geocentrism and got a critique of Pearcy who in turn was merely concisely commenting on what historians have found. I mentioned about whether Dawkins would cheer vs. jeer Germany’s decision to outlaw certain kinds of schooling and whether that should come stateside, and got nothing but pieties of secular “standards”, which is to say something close to nothing at all and atrocious. I mentioned the fact that there is a political context to plunking down billions to African warlords and got rebuffed about the cruelty of pointing out the obvious fact that other than the very real and unfortunate matter of orphaned children, AIDS does NOT strike in some random manner of stray dogs nipping at people in the park, or muggers waiting behind alleyways. Elsewhere in Africa, it seems malaria gets a free passbook with lots of “kill-for-free” coupons enclosed. During the 90’s, under the Rule of Compassion, and before the Dark Night of Horror under Rovian/Bush rule, millions of Africans die in famine, and Hutus and Tutsie’s by the hundreds of thousands are hacked into pieces. What few whole bodies make it down the river provided free meals to lions downstream. The world yawns and lights a cigarette. Madeline Albright made sure we understood having Marines dragged by the heels in Somalia and defeated by the local warlords was reason enough to scram and not get involved anymore. The AIDS lobby finds a goal, however, in promoting the notion that rectal thrusting should be consequence free fun.
So don’t come here yapping about “compassion”, as if you and your compatriots who turn anything into something political, like saying good morning without acknowledging Heather’s two mommies, have this market cornered. For that matter, don’t attempt to generate ratio-centric rules about why Singer is OK in some hippy-dippy way but just not YOUR particular cup of tea, but nevertheless he makes some kind of semi-valid point in some groovy far via dualistic academic methodology, but the we need not pay too much attention, and can disdain his take on things while accepting the diversity of nuttiness,etc, etc.
I point out the psychological connection to atheism and tyranny is well noted by historians and sociologists of merit is well known. You promise us this trending is not the case.
(Grandma says the check is in the mail to that nice banker man, too. But I’ll stick with the scholars and the historians. History makes the best perspective, not glurge and bile from Dawkins.)
The decline of West, when it rejects its very foundations in Christianity, which in turn vanquished the habits and brutalities of the pagans and established a common law (to the irritation of men like Singer) also established the individualist ethic of human dignity, is also well-known to historians connecting the dots of influence of cultures and beliefs. You responded by just dismissing their insights with hand-waving and responded with some utilitarian analysis of how the protohumans through today had a brain duality that forced them to make decisions. And yet no doubt that routine is not known to people who don’t like, say, the notion of little daughter getting power pumped at the ripe age 12 by some beefy hunk down the street. Say this is not a swell idea, and decide to nix the influence of the public schools on such matters of the heart, and we accused of being fundamaniacs who just don’t appreciate the hard realities of life. Not that free will about right and wrong mean anything to you. Though one wonders how an automated set of responses honed over time like the switches of a computer responding to keystrokes and downloads responding with canned answers, actually “means” something “moral.” It is no more moral than Alexandra going to the far side of the tank for a fast meal. It’s a learned response. It does not make her a moral being. But that observation is not supposed to mean anything. Our responses to stimuli somehow “generate” this moral input and output. I mentioned the Fairness Doctrine’s attempt to nix free speech, and there was no response. Just a paean to some disembodied gargoyle called “liberal democracy”, and alternative views from clowns like Olberman–which are fine to that effect–but not an answer to Nancy Pelosi’s call for all but shutting down radio and regulating internet transactions. Hmmm
What would you have me do? I don’t intend ill-will here to anyone on this site. So I doubt that’s the problem.
It appears this is the point of impasse. Perhaps you’ll check out the links that don’t work.
Maybe next time they will.
That’s all I can do from here. And, as I’m extraordinarily busy at the moment doing icky, redneckish, conservative Christian things like raising kids, catching up on some reports, managing a fuel budget while the Democrats make sure fuel stays expensive, and otherwise getting myself back to the hum drum of life, this will have to be the last post for a long while.
I’ve even neglected my own site for some time now.
So govern yourself judiciously, Paul.
October 22, 2008 @ 10:12 amPaul, over 5,000 man-hours went into working with the primary source documents in “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”. The book is thoroughly researched. The personal stories in the book are minimal.
I do understand your fear though in not wanting to read this book. I had to deal with the same issue thirty years ago. My hope is that you do engage yourself with this work and discover that our faith is founded on sound evidence. None of us on this site wish hell for anyone.
October 22, 2008 @ 10:14 amWow. That was hilarous! Thanks wakefield. You proved my point for me.
October 22, 2008 @ 10:32 amJim, I see you really respect his author. I’ll give the book a closer look. Thanks.
October 22, 2008 @ 10:33 amOn the political issues Susac makes some valid points. He speaks to issues which right wingers are not even allowed to reflect on much less openly discuss. “Socialism” is treated like a four letter word even though policy has been infused with it by both parties for a very long time. It is a fact. Instead of swearing at it we should learn to manage it.
Big government, BTW, is necessitated by little people. If “We, the People” (especially the Christians) did more at the grass roots level the government would have fewer reasons to raise more taxes and inefficiently spend more money. Government is not the problem, people are. And both sides, left and right are wrong. One wants to inject it with growth hormones and the other wants to put it to sleep. One is called a racist fascist (nonsense…I think) and the other is referred to as immoral communists (a foolish over reaction).
Government only considers suicide as a legal option because the people want it. To prevent that change the people not the government. Historically people have endured all kinds of physical pain because they had a strong sense of purpose and meaning to life. That is not something you preach into people or legislate. It must be nurtured.
I am really grateful for this thread. I used to think I was verbose.
October 22, 2008 @ 12:44 pmWalrus
I’ve not read that book, but it sounds like an excellent read, I’d love to hear what you think of it. As Jim says, nobody here wishes hell on anyone. Even me or Henry, and we annoy people here all the time.
All the best with everything
Egg man
October 22, 2008 @ 12:46 pm– that actually made me laugh out loud and get strange looks from my family!
October 22, 2008 @ 12:48 pm