Originally posted by Evangeline:
Dawkin's tweet is outrageous because it is not pro-choice. It says DS foetuses SHOULD be aborted, that's as fixed a position as the pro-lifers. Stay out of women's bodies Dawkins it's the mothers' choice.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:He is an insensitive git.
Originally posted by orfeo:
He may well be an insensitive git
quote:is true.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, it's nice of you to link his views with his atheism, when he didn't.
quote:I'd have said judging atheism by Dawkins is more like judging Christianity by Rick Warren?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Elsewise we can judge Christianity by WBC....
quote:makes no sense. He appears to be saying that you shouldn't call someone a horrid monster if they recommend something that actually happens. Rape actually happens. Murder actually happens. War actually happens. Yes, you can be a horrid monster for recommending something that actually happens. The question that determines whether or not you are a horrid monster for recommending something is not whether it actually happens, but whether it's an ethical thing to do.
Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to the great majority of Down Syndrome fetuses. They are aborted.
quote:Lol!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I've been wondering if the man is in early stage dementia; he's lost the bloody plot. He's made various tweets in recent months that have heated the water around him. Maybe he just has a new book coming out. His atheist gene must be so unselfish that it needs constant propagation.
quote:I'm an atheist and I disagree with a lot of his opinions.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing is, I follow a few atheists on twitter. They are cringing and wishing he would shut up.
Like most Christians do when WBC talk.
It is an interesting learning experience for them. He is pretty much on his own, most of his natural supporters having abandoned him. Which is sad for him.
quote:Hah - clever!
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There's an inverse correlation in his case between IQ and EQ. His frontal lobes aren't polarized which is most unusual (he can't be 'spooked') and one suspects that correlates with my correlation. If that had been detected amniotically, he should, of course, have been hoist with his own petard and aborted.
quote:I understand what you say but WBC doesn't purport to speak for all Christianity and doesn't have a million adoring fans or followers on Twitter. Neither does WBC tap into the kind of 'right on' atheistic university culture that merely laughs at the stupidity of Christian belief and fuels so much of today's popular late night comedy on the TV.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:He is an insensitive git.
Originally posted by orfeo:
He may well be an insensitive git
However, this
quote:is true.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, it's nice of you to link his views with his atheism, when he didn't.
Elsewise we can judge Christianity by WBC....
quote:That's not even close to what he did.
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Dawkins is successfully drawing attention to the hypocrisy that most of the voices outraged at his proposition are otherwise pro-choice. Infants without any apparent disability are already being aborted in huge numbers. Why is his latest proposition more of an outrage than this? Only those of a total pro-life position are morally able to challenge his opinion.
quote:Many who have abortions don't want to do so. Circumstances drive them to it. How about doing or even advocating something practical instead of this callous holier-than-thou grandstanding?
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Dawkins is successfully drawing attention to the hypocrisy that most of the voices outraged at his proposition are otherwise pro-choice. Infants without any apparent disability are already being aborted in huge numbers. Why is his latest proposition more of an outrage than this? Only those of a total pro-life position are morally able to challenge his opinion.
quote:I'm not pro-choice!
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Dawkins is successfully drawing attention to the hypocrisy that most of the voices outraged at his proposition are otherwise pro-choice. Infants without any apparent disability are already being aborted in huge numbers. Why is his latest proposition more of an outrage than this? Only those of a total pro-life position are morally able to challenge his opinion.
quote:I don't know how you can say the hypocrisy exists without knowing the beliefs of the people who are outraged with Dawkins. Given that some of the people complaining have their own DS children that seems like a rather odd assumption on your part.
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Yea, I know what he said, but Dawkins doesn't decide what's right & wrong - so that's discounted. The hypocrisy still exists.
quote:And when it comes to genocide what is your fixed moral point? Your fixed moral point cannot exclude genocide because your god has ordered and approved it in the past according to the Bible, which is where I assume you derive your boast that you have a superior moral compass. What happens if you hear a voice in your head saying: "This is God. Go out and massacre a people for me"? you cannot unequivocally deny it's God, because he's got form. So do you keep to your fixed moral point and obey orders, or do you cross your fingers and become a moral relativist?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Some atheists claim that their moral compass is just as strong as that of people of faith. The problem is that, whilst most atheists - and I know some as relatives and friends - are incredibly lovely human beings just the same as the rest of us, when it comes to moral choices they have no fixed point. That's not to say they don't make the correct moral choices and that Christians always do - that's obviously not the case!
quote:Oh, I agree. The logic of his defense is flawed.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Mousethief nailed it right here.
quote:True, although one could argue that Dawkins tries to make things like this about his atheism.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh, I agree. The logic of his defense is flawed.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Mousethief nailed it right here.
It's just not flawed because he's an atheist.
quote:I am pro-choice; and when I was pregnant with a handicapped child (not Downs) I chose to continue the pregnancy. Dawkins has said that he thinks that letting women like me choose what to do with our pregnancies and our bodies is wrong; we should have no choice, but should abort.
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Dawkins is successfully drawing attention to the hypocrisy that most of the voices outraged at his proposition are otherwise pro-choice. Infants without any apparent disability are already being aborted in huge numbers. Why is his latest proposition more of an outrage than this? Only those of a total pro-life position are morally able to challenge his opinion.
quote:While being stupid on Twitter, yes is looked like he did. Writing at greater length, not so much. FWIW, my own choice would be different to his, and I wish he would shut down his Twitter feed forever because he is becoming a liability to atheists.
I am pro-choice; and when I was pregnant with a handicapped child (not Downs) I chose to continue the pregnancy. Dawkins has said that he thinks that letting women like me choose what to do with our pregnancies and our bodies is wrong; we should have no choice, but should abort.
quote:And it is hindsight. How many words are needed to say that a single tweet can't cover the subtleties?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Rational, fair, credible hindsight after the unwisdom of a private 'telegraphese' tweet going viral.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:That makes Dianetics look cheap.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
For a measly $100,000 you can have breakfast with the great man .
quote:Reads as a notapology to me and he takes the time to blame the people who did not understand what he did not say.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
While being stupid on Twitter, yes is looked like he did. Writing at greater length, not so much.
quote:I love it. "At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits."
Originally posted by Anselmina:
For a measly $100,000 you can have breakfast with the great man .
And to think dopey old Jesus actually cooked his followers their breakfast for nothing!! Doh!
quote:Or in other words, "loathsome little replicas of himself" to quote Screwtape.
Originally posted by Figbash:
What I find appalling is his contention that while Down's Syndrome makes one subhuman, Autism is an enhancement. Or, to put it another way, 'less empathic', in Dawkins-speak, translates into 'better'. So is his ultimate goal an emotionless robot? Like Data, only without the charm?
Or, to put it another way, he is introducing some kind of hierarchy of human behaviours that makes that in Brave New World seem kinda moderate.
quote:Dawkin's tweet is outrageous because it is not pro-choice. It says DS foetuses SHOULD be aborted, that's as fixed a position as the pro-lifers. Stay out of women's bodies Dawkins it's the mothers' choice.
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Dawkins is successfully drawing attention to the hypocrisy that most of the voices outraged at his proposition are otherwise pro-choice. Infants without any apparent disability are already being aborted in huge numbers. Why is his latest proposition more of an outrage than this? Only those of a total pro-life position are morally able to challenge his opinion.
quote:Dawkins's tweet is outrageous because it is pure ableism.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Dawkin's tweet is outrageous because it is not pro-choice. It says DS foetuses SHOULD be aborted, that's as fixed a position as the pro-lifers. Stay out of women's bodies Dawkins it's the mothers' choice.
quote:Exactly. Eugenics is ugly. Dawkins is correct in pointing out that it happens all the time. Abortion-on-demand requires us as a society to have a very difficult conversation about eugenics, which we have not been willing to have, except in fits and starts.
Originally posted by Figbash:
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
quote:If issues of poverty, sexism, racism, the ethics of technology, ethics of sexuality, personal control of one's person, among other issues are not part of the discussion, then it is not a useful conversation.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Exactly. Eugenics is ugly. Dawkins is correct in pointing out that it happens all the time. Abortion-on-demand requires us as a society to have a very difficult conversation about eugenics, which we have not been willing to have, except in fits and starts.
Originally posted by Figbash:
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
quote:I would never say otherwise.
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:If issues of poverty, sexism, racism, the ethics of technology, ethics of sexuality, personal control of one's person, among other issues are not part of the discussion, then it is not a useful conversation.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Exactly. Eugenics is ugly. Dawkins is correct in pointing out that it happens all the time. Abortion-on-demand requires us as a society to have a very difficult conversation about eugenics, which we have not been willing to have, except in fits and starts.
Originally posted by Figbash:
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
quote:Oh, I don't know....there's not that far to travel from Dawkins' particular brand of eugenics to the 'extermination of unfit life'.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know, one can really ruin a convincing argument by driving it into hyperbole.
quote:Indeed - the issue is also 'who decides?'
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Oh, I don't know....there's not that far to travel from Dawkins' particular brand of eugenics to the 'extermination of unfit life'.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know, one can really ruin a convincing argument by driving it into hyperbole.
quote:Don't you mean "the logic of a certain view of reality (which is itself illogical)"?
Originally posted by Mudfrog
In other words, we don't want deity, we don't want humanity, we want logic.
quote:Bollocks. There is logical science-based opinion (which is quite a good thing) and there are Dawkins' saloon bar prejudices. Merely because Dawkins conflates the former with the latter doesn't mean that the rest of us have to.
The huge implication that Dawkins offers is that it's logical, science-based opinion that should decide.
quote:What makes you think that poverty, sexism, racism, and so on and so forth, involve anything other than denying people their full humanity?
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:If issues of poverty, sexism, racism, the ethics of technology, ethics of sexuality, personal control of one's person, among other issues are not part of the discussion, then it is not a useful conversation.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Exactly. Eugenics is ugly. Dawkins is correct in pointing out that it happens all the time. Abortion-on-demand requires us as a society to have a very difficult conversation about eugenics, which we have not been willing to have, except in fits and starts.
Originally posted by Figbash:
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
quote:Q - I know this is (and has often been) discussed elsewhere on the ship - but can I ask you about it here? The statement (morality = non-rational) appears to me to be true, and to suggest that such atheists are as in hock to something just as mystical as me, a Theist...
I'm not sure how much Dawkins would define morality logically, since quite a lot of atheists don't, but see it as arational. Quite a lot quote Hume: 'morality is determined by sentiment'. Even more interesting: 'reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions'.
quote:Well, Gildas has just said that Dawkins is not a Humean. But I know plenty of atheists who cite Hume, meaning that morality is derived from what he (Hume) calls 'sentiment'. I suppose you can relate this to approval or disapproval, and ultimately to feelings, ('passions' in Hume).
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:Q - I know this is (and has often been) discussed elsewhere on the ship - but can I ask you about it here? The statement (morality = non-rational) appears to me to be true, and to suggest that such atheists are as in hock to something just as mystical as me, a Theist...
I'm not sure how much Dawkins would define morality logically, since quite a lot of atheists don't, but see it as arational. Quite a lot quote Hume: 'morality is determined by sentiment'. Even more interesting: 'reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions'.
quote:Being pro-choice doesn't preclude having an opinion on what's right. I don't read Dawkins' comments as implying the women should be compelled or pressured to abort.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Dawkin's tweet is outrageous because it is not pro-choice. It says DS foetuses SHOULD be aborted, that's as fixed a position as the pro-lifers. Stay out of women's bodies Dawkins it's the mothers' choice.
quote:sigh
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
The statement (morality = non-rational) appears to me to be true, and to suggest that such atheists are as in hock to something just as mystical as me, a Theist...
quote:Are you saying that your morality is objective or subjective? It's not clear from the above comment.
Originally posted by Eliab
It is, of course, insensitive to voice one's opinion about extremely personal decisions, but not outrageous to have such opinions. And, it seems to me, that if one believes in any sort of objective morality (there are right answers to moral choices) AND that abortion is sometimes morally acceptable, it is quite plausible that there will be some cases where abortion is the morally correct thing to do. At the very least, such a position is not obviously absurd and could be argued for.
Personally I'd disagree with it, because, although I don't think a foetus has full human moral rights, I don't think that it is valueless either, and shouldn't simply be written off as a genetic failure, but I don't think people who abort disabled foetuses are morally beyond the pale, and therefore I don't think Dawkins' statement that these people are right, not just permitted, to do that is outrageous.
quote:Subjectively.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
how we relate to the objective world
quote:So one person thinks it is right to kill an unborn child and another thinks that it is wrong.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Subjectively.
quote:According to whom?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And they are both 'right'
quote:Opinions will vary, as they are wont to do. "Those who believe in the idea of subjective morality" is a pretty big set of people, after all!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
According to those who believe in the idea of subjective morality.
quote:I'm not so sure that we have to decide one way or the other on most things. Is it Right or Wrong to eat shellfish? Meh, who cares - eat it if you want to, don't if you don't.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that if we get rid of objective truth that covers us all, someone then has to decide what is true in the place of the written 'God-given' code.
quote:In cases where a decision has to be made in order for society to function, democratic consensus. In all other cases, the individual.
Who then decides?
quote:But quite a lot of atheists go along with some of David Hume's ideas, who related morality to 'sentiment', by which he meant feelings. In particular, the feelings of approval and disapproval. Sometimes, in fact, Hume is labelled an 'anti-rationalist' in terms of moral thinking.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We're back to the wheelbarrow - we push our opinions, rights, conscience, ethics and morality wherever we want them to go.
The problem is that if we get rid of objective truth that covers us all, someone then has to decide what is true in the place of the written 'God-given' code. Who then decides?
It seems to me - and evidently to people like Dawkins - that it is science that must decide. But not science tempered with humanity (what Dawkins would call sentiment), it would be science applied by logic - with no recourse to or appeal by feelings or mercy.
People will die if 'the computer says no'.
quote:If they're consistent, yes. That doesn't mean they have to agree with each other's positions, of course.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Can I take it, therefore, that those who believe in subjective morality respect the validity of each other's moral positions?
quote:Your original point where you said that both sides were right? I guess that may be how it looks from your perspective, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of there is no "right" and "wrong" in such a situation - each individual facing it must decide for themselves.
If yes, then my original point stands.
quote:Depends what you mean by "respect", I guess. Like I said earlier, considering a position valid doesn't mean you have to agree with it. And disagreement - especially where opinions are strongly held - can get quite disrespectful!
If no, then whoever does not respect the validity of other positions clearly does not believe that morality is subjective.
quote:I agree with CS Lewis on this point.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Take politics, for example. I'm firmly opposed to redistributive taxation and will argue the point forcefully when necessary. But that doesn't mean I think the people who support it have an invalid opinion, or are objectively wrong.
quote:I don't think that many atheists would argue that science determines morality. But they might well argue that science informs morality. The distinction is quite an important one. I don't think that science can demonstrate that we shouldn't burn witches but it does demonstrate that a belief in maleficium is not grounded in reality. AIUI both a Humean and a consequentialist would hold that it follows that we should not burn witches but would get there by slightly different roads. They would differ as to what extent reason informed or underpinned that distinction but both would regard the "no evidential datum for maleficium" as being part of the reason for objecting to witch burning. Clearly the decision to abort a foetus with Downs Syndrome is not quite as clear cut. But science can give us a reasonable idea as to the quality of life of a Downs Syndrome child and this will inform the decision whether to abort a foetus or not. But science cannot tell you whether or not the decision is morally licit. Science tells you facts about the physical universe. Morality tells you what you should, or should not do, given the facts of the case.
But Dawkins (apparently) does not share these ideas; well, I am just pointing out that not all atheists say that science will determine morality.
quote:Can it?
Originally posted by Gildas
But science can give us a reasonable idea as to the quality of life of a Downs Syndrome child
quote:There really is no place in your worldview for people of goodwill to honestly disagree, is there? Every single thing, concept, idea or action is either Right and Moral and Good or Wrong and Immoral and Evil, isn't it?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I agree with CS Lewis on this point.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Take politics, for example. I'm firmly opposed to redistributive taxation and will argue the point forcefully when necessary. But that doesn't mean I think the people who support it have an invalid opinion, or are objectively wrong.
See my sig.
quote:Well yes, science can give you a reasonable idea about how a Down's Syndrome child's cognitive functions will operate and his or her life expectancy.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Can it?
Originally posted by Gildas
But science can give us a reasonable idea as to the quality of life of a Downs Syndrome child
As a Christian I certainly believe that God can work in a person's life in ways that are not accessible to scientific investigation. Why, for example, do we see so much joy and happiness among people who, according to the presumption of a scientific view of the quality of life, ought to be the most miserable and depressed? I work with such people (the disabled, dementia sufferers), so I think I have some idea about this.
quote:No more absurd that the idea that if I believe something to be true, it must therefore be true for everybody (and by extension, anybody who doesn't believe it is therefore Bad and Wrong and Immoral, and should probably be locked up and beaten until they see the error of their ways).
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The idea that one can argue for a position that you don't actually believe is any more true than the opposing view, is pretty absurd.
quote:Ah, epistemology. I'm no expert, but isn't the distinction between knowledge and belief pretty well-covered by that particular branch of philosophy?
...to say as a matter of philosophical position that one's opponent's view (contrary to one's own) is as epistemically valid as one's own, is just sophistry.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:There is in the sense that you can only pick one of the options*. The point of such an analogy, as I'm sure you know, was to highlight the fact that it is perfectly possible to disagree about something while still thinking the other person's opinion is perfectly valid.
Setting up a dichotomy between different styles of breakfast is a ridiculous analogy. There is no contradiction between different types of food, as there is between different economic theories or moral positions.
quote:A much more measured person than Dawkins (a doctor I think) dealt with Dawkins' remarks on the BBC radio programme Any Questions and said that from his point of view the quality of life issue for a person with Downs was about the horrible physical things that would happen to them towards the end of life as a result of Downs. As a doctor working with older Downs people his take on the moral issue was not about the joy of the child and young person's life but about the suffering at the end of life. He thought the suffering approaching death was so bad that it outweighed the joy of the earlier part of life and therefore if his unborn child had Downs he would abort to save them that suffering.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:Well yes, science can give you a reasonable idea about how a Down's Syndrome child's cognitive functions will operate and his or her life expectancy.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Can it?
Originally posted by Gildas
But science can give us a reasonable idea as to the quality of life of a Downs Syndrome child
As a Christian I certainly believe that God can work in a person's life in ways that are not accessible to scientific investigation. Why, for example, do we see so much joy and happiness among people who, according to the presumption of a scientific view of the quality of life, ought to be the most miserable and depressed? I work with such people (the disabled, dementia sufferers), so I think I have some idea about this.
quote:Unless religious morality is implanted in us by God, it is presumably equally genetic and therefore equally rational.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Morality =/= non-rational
There is plenty of science to back up the claim that the underlying fundamentals of morality are genetic. It is a stronger case to say religious morality = non-rational.
quote:Thing is, it is more can happen, not will happen.
said that from his point of view the quality of life issue for a person with Downs was about the horrible physical things that would happen to them towards the end of life as a result of Downs.
quote:True is not the same as epistemically valid. That is in fact the very error that you're objecting to in reverse. Truth is about what is the case; epistemic validity is about whether we have access to it. One can perfectly well be a relativist about epistemic validity while rejecting relativism about truth. (For instance, Einstein has shown that Newton was wrong to think mass was a constant independent of velocity; but that doesn't mean Newton wasn't entitled to be confident in his theory.)
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
but to say as a matter of philosphical position that one's opponent's view (contrary to one's own) is as epistemically valid as one's own, is just sophistry.
quote:Really, no. Your maths are terrible.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Unless religious morality is implanted in us by God, it is presumably equally genetic and therefore equally rational.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Morality =/= non-rational
There is plenty of science to back up the claim that the underlying fundamentals of morality are genetic. It is a stronger case to say religious morality = non-rational.
Morality is rational; therefore aggression and power-seeking is irrational. Therefore aggression and power-seeking is not genetic.
Have I made my point?
quote:You mean it's not inevitable that Downs causes horrible physical problems? I feared it was. (Thinking of distant cousin with Downs.)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:Thing is, it is more can happen, not will happen.
said that from his point of view the quality of life issue for a person with Downs was about the horrible physical things that would happen to them towards the end of life as a result of Downs.
quote:Objectively you might be right.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Take politics, for example. I'm firmly opposed to redistributive taxation and will argue the point forcefully when necessary. But that doesn't mean I think the people who support it have an invalid opinion, or are objectively wrong.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
They've had a good education, some lovely holidays, all three have nice girlfriends, 2 have graduated, one is a teacher, one has a career in the RAF ahead of him and the other is overcoming Asbergers to go through Uni.quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Objectively you might be right.
In my subjective opinion, your opinion is self-serving and selfish nonsense.
quote:A sad end to a really brilliant post.
Originally posted by Mudfrog
And I thank God that it was common humanity, love and the Divine himself that gave your life meaning instead of cold fucking logic that would have aborted you in order to spare you what it presumes you would not want.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:People with Downs have a greater chance of certain ailments than the general population. There is no certainty. But they are ailments potentially suffered by the general population and we are getting better at dealing with them.
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
You mean it's not inevitable that Downs causes horrible physical problems? I feared it was. (Thinking of distant cousin with Downs.)
quote:And selfishness. This is a component of the decision whether to abort a Downs child. I am not meaning this in a judgmental way, just a statement of fact.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I didn't think that the end of life argument was about logic in any case - the doctor concerned said that he couldn't bear to see his child suffer greatly. That's not logic, surely, but empathy or compassion.
quote:I agree it's terrible. But it's your maths not mine. The fault is entirely due to your equation of 'genetic' with 'rational'.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Really, no. Your maths are terrible.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Unless religious morality is implanted in us by God, it is presumably equally genetic and therefore equally rational.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Morality =/= non-rational
There is plenty of science to back up the claim that the underlying fundamentals of morality are genetic. It is a stronger case to say religious morality = non-rational.
Morality is rational; therefore aggression and power-seeking is irrational. Therefore aggression and power-seeking is not genetic.
Have I made my point?
quote:We're agreeing that an opinion might be objectively right? that there is an objective right for an opinion to be? (And perhaps we need a phrase for opinions that are not objectively right? We could call them 'objectively wrong'.)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Objectively you might be right.
In my subjective opinion, your opinion is self-serving and selfish nonsense.
quote:My morality is exactly as objective as my wit and my rhetoric. I intend that my statements should really (objectively) be moral, astute and persuasive. Sometimes I fail.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are you saying that your morality is objective or subjective? It's not clear from the above comment.
quote:I'm not really interested in compelling anyone to think like me about abortion on a Hell thread. I'll do that in Dead Horses, if I can be arsed.
If the former, then what is the objective evidence that compels us to think like you, and if the latter, then in what way can these thoughts of yours be considered 'moral', given that morality in large part - and certainly in this case - concerns how we relate to other people (i.e. how we relate to the objective world)?
quote:Quotes file.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Bollocks. There is logical science-based opinion (which is quite a good thing) and there are Dawkins' saloon bar prejudices. Merely because Dawkins conflates the former with the latter doesn't mean that the rest of us have to.
The huge implication that Dawkins offers is that it's logical, science-based opinion that should decide.
More generally because the speaker is a Christian it would be terminally naive to assume that his or her pronouncements were the outworking of Holy Charity. Equally, just because someone claims to be a rationalist it does not follow that their view are necessarily rational.
quote:'Having three cute babies in succession, albums full of family photos, the memories of school plays, family holidays, a father's pride at graduations, (hopefully)three weddings and a quiver-full of grandchildren' is surely a completely selfish motivation for having children? I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it is selfish - it is all about you and your feelings. Certainly hoping that your children get married and have children is very selfish - what if they don't want to do so? I'm sure it's a very natural emotion for some people, but that doesn't make it not selfish. To be honest, I'm not sure there's a non-selfish (used in a morally-neutral sense) reason for having children beyond gene therapy for another child.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Using the 'end of life illness' logic, who the bloody hell would have children?
I mean, we've had three boys. OMG what have I done??
But look!! When they are old one of them might die of prostate cancer, another might suffer from motor neurone disease and the other might die slowly in heart failure. They might have the pain of divorce, lose a child, experience the numbing heartache of losing their wife to dementia or a stroke and end up in a council care home.
Oh boys, I am so sorry! For my selfish desire of having three cute babies in succession, albums full of family photos, the memories of school plays, family holidays, a father's pride at graduations, (hopefully)three weddings and a quiver-full of grandchildren, I have sentenced you to an old age of visiting pain clinics, home care and painful old-age ailments when I'm not around to see it and feel guilty for what I've brought you into the world to face.
OR
I can just thank God that I gave you the opportunity to experience the beauty of creation, of family life, of fulfilling whatever potential was appropriate to you mental, emotional and spiritual capacity. I thank God for the joy you yourself experience and the grace that you will experience and the satisfaction at the end of it all that you have shared in the human condition, whatever it brought you.
And I thank God that it was common humanity, love and the Divine himself that gave your life meaning instead of cold fucking logic that would have aborted you in order to spare you what it presumes you would not want.
quote:Wouldn't that be an argument for (voluntary) euthanasia later in life rather than for terminating the pregnancy? After all, DS is not the only condition that can have severe suffering in older age.
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
A much more measured person than Dawkins (a doctor I think) dealt with Dawkins' remarks on the BBC radio programme Any Questions and said that from his point of view the quality of life issue for a person with Downs was about the horrible physical things that would happen to them towards the end of life as a result of Downs. As a doctor working with older Downs people his take on the moral issue was not about the joy of the child and young person's life but about the suffering at the end of life. He thought the suffering approaching death was so bad that it outweighed the joy of the earlier part of life and therefore if his unborn child had Downs he would abort to save them that suffering.
quote:I said the underlying fundamentals of morality. Our species is a cooperative one. This is significant to our success. This does not negate the presence, and indeed value, of selfishness. It is only in some religious philosophies that one sees the issue as black and white. Nature does not work that way.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I agree it's terrible. But it's your maths not mine. The fault is entirely due to your equation of 'genetic' with 'rational'.
quote:Yes - I think logically you're right (and yes I know "logically" is a very loaded term on this thread). But emotionally and socially* attempting to euthanase people "before their suffering got too intense" is virtually impossible even with their informed consent so I can see why the person wasn't attempting to advocate that.
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:Wouldn't that be an argument for (voluntary) euthanasia later in life rather than for terminating the pregnancy? After all, DS is not the only condition that can have severe suffering in older age.
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
A much more measured person than Dawkins (a doctor I think) dealt with Dawkins' remarks on the BBC radio programme Any Questions and said that from his point of view the quality of life issue for a person with Downs was about the horrible physical things that would happen to them towards the end of life as a result of Downs. As a doctor working with older Downs people his take on the moral issue was not about the joy of the child and young person's life but about the suffering at the end of life. He thought the suffering approaching death was so bad that it outweighed the joy of the earlier part of life and therefore if his unborn child had Downs he would abort to save them that suffering.
quote:With an exceptionally heavy emphasis on the "might".
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We're agreeing that an opinion might be objectively right?
quote:It's not impossible that such a thing does exist. Of course, even if it does I'm massively unconvinced that we can ever know exactly what it is in this life.
that there is an objective right for an opinion to be?
quote:"Objective" works well in the sciences but in the arts and humanities not so much as you can't provide evidential proof in the same way. Perhaps "objective" would work if you set out in advance what your assumptions are e.g. "I assume that X sacred book contains the absolute last word on all subjects, using the interpretation of organisation Y". You could then use objective tests (does the proposition agree with the sacred text, therefore is it objectively true) within the parameters you'd set out. Does this make any sense or am I gibbering?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So 'objective' means not determined by subjective opinion; in that case, how on earth can it ever be accessed?
quote:I prefer the term 'intersubjective' to describe scientific method, as it is always provisional, and always subject to the repeatable testing of other researchers. Science progresses through getting it wrong.
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:"Objective" works well in the sciences but in the arts and humanities not so much as you can't provide evidential proof in the same way. Perhaps "objective" would work if you set out in advance what your assumptions are e.g. "I assume that X sacred book contains the absolute last word on all subjects, using the interpretation of organisation Y". You could then use objective tests (does the proposition agree with the sacred text, therefore is it objectively true) within the parameters you'd set out. Does this make any sense or am I gibbering?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So 'objective' means not determined by subjective opinion; in that case, how on earth can it ever be accessed?
quote:Working with and in the brain of a falible human being probably there never is a truly objective case.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I prefer the term 'intersubjective' to describe scientific method, as it is always provisional, and always subject to the repeatable testing of other researchers. Science progresses through getting it wrong.
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:"Objective" works well in the sciences but in the arts and humanities not so much as you can't provide evidential proof in the same way. Perhaps "objective" would work if you set out in advance what your assumptions are e.g. "I assume that X sacred book contains the absolute last word on all subjects, using the interpretation of organisation Y". You could then use objective tests (does the proposition agree with the sacred text, therefore is it objectively true) within the parameters you'd set out. Does this make any sense or am I gibbering?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So 'objective' means not determined by subjective opinion; in that case, how on earth can it ever be accessed?
Yes, of course, you can define 'objective' in that way - but how would you realize that it had been false?
An example: for a 1000 years, Christians burned people, and presumably they felt they were being virtuous.
I suppose later they decided that it hadn't been virtuous - so which is the objective case?
quote:Given my personal paradigm and reference frame, I think the people you describe are idiots. (Subjectively)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Helen-Eva
Well, yes. But there is also having your cake and eating it, isn't there? I mean you get people who on the one hand, say, yes, there is objective morality, and possibly, there is some access to it; but on the other hand, (when faced with something like the burning of people), oops, we got it wrong that time.
The trouble with this, is that it can't fail. Or, if it fails, that is also part of the plan!
quote:Not only can you define 'objective' in that way, you should. Something is objective if being true can be different from appearing true. When being true and appearing true are different we call it being wrong. Therefore, if it's possible to be wrong you're talking about something objective and if it's not possible to be wrong then you're talking about something that's not objective.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I prefer the term 'intersubjective' to describe scientific method, as it is always provisional, and always subject to the repeatable testing of other researchers. Science progresses through getting it wrong.
Yes, of course, you can define 'objective' in that way - but how would you realize that it had been false?
quote:Why should I bother to accord your opinions any respect or validity if they might be right only with exceptionally heavy emphasis on the 'might', and we'll probably never know in this life anyway?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:With an exceptionally heavy emphasis on the "might".
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We're agreeing that an opinion might be objectively right?
quote:I was actually reflecting this view:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'Having three cute babies in succession, albums full of family photos, the memories of school plays, family holidays, a father's pride at graduations, (hopefully)three weddings and a quiver-full of grandchildren' is surely a completely selfish motivation for having children? I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it is selfish - it is all about you and your feelings. Certainly hoping that your children get married and have children is very selfish - what if they don't want to do so? I'm sure it's a very natural emotion for some people, but that doesn't make it not selfish. To be honest, I'm not sure there's a non-selfish (used in a morally-neutral sense) reason for having children beyond gene therapy for another child.
I don't think selfishness is bad at all, necessarily. I don't want children, for extremely selfish reasons that are about me and my feelings - and that's the right thing for me to do, I think.
quote:The writer was saying that just because Down's syndrome people are happy, etc, in early life doesn't outweigh the dreadful end of life scenario and therefore it's almost better that they weren't born in the first place.
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
A much more measured person than Dawkins (a doctor I think) dealt with Dawkins' remarks on the BBC radio programme Any Questions and said that from his point of view the quality of life issue for a person with Downs was about the horrible physical things that would happen to them towards the end of life as a result of Downs. As a doctor working with older Downs people his take on the moral issue was not about the joy of the child and young person's life but about the suffering at the end of life. He thought the suffering approaching death was so bad that it outweighed the joy of the earlier part of life and therefore if his unborn child had Downs he would abort to save them that suffering.
quote:If one subscribes to the notion of "plan".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The trouble with this, is that it can't fail. Or, if it fails, that is also part of the plan!
quote:Firstly, because that's true of everyone.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why should I bother to accord your opinions any respect or validity if they might be right only with exceptionally heavy emphasis on the 'might', and we'll probably never know in this life anyway?
quote:That's fine, up to a point. I agree that for those who argue that a foetus does not possess human rights then this can indeed be a logically consistent position.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I know (and intend) that this is not analogous to abortion - that's the point, it exaggerates, rather than copies, all the elements of the "should I abort?" dilemma. However if you believed (as I suspect Dawkins believes) that a very early stage foetus is no more possessed of human rights than is an individual sperm, then the conclusion that "in this case I ought to abort" is a decision that could be reached without obvious wickedness. And that's what I take him to be saying, albeit insensitively.
quote:It's not true of everyone. There's one exception. My subjective opinions are subjectively true for me.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Firstly, because that's true of everyone.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why should I bother to accord your opinions any respect or validity if they might be right only with exceptionally heavy emphasis on the 'might', and we'll probably never know in this life anyway?
quote:Recognising that Cameron and Osborne have won the election doesn't mean I respect their opinions.
Secondly, because oftentimes even if we don't (can't) know who is "right", we still have to reach a decision that we will both then abide by. Preferably by a method that will leave us both at least reasonably satisfied.
quote:Subjectively speaking, common decency means holding moral opinions that basicallyagree with me.
Thirdly, common decency?
quote:If there's a conflict between implementing my political beliefs and having my political beliefs respected, it would be a bit egotistic of me to go for the latter.
Fourthly, because respect is a two-way street, and if you want me to show it for your opinions then it's a good idea to show it for mine. Again, I note that respect doesn't mean agreement.
quote:I don't think Dawkins' position even remotely implies that people with Downs are not deserving of life. It only implies that foetuses aren't 'people'.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The second, bigger problem for me is the assumption that Down's Syndrome is a condition we should erradicate. I work in paediatric surgery; quite a few of our patients have Down's (as there are associated problems that require surgical intervention) and so I have a fair bit of experience of children and adolescents with Down's syndrome. I think it very dangerous and incideous that we are by implication counting them as not deserving of life...
quote:No, I think it really does.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I don't think Dawkins' position even remotely implies that people with Downs are not deserving of life.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The second, bigger problem for me is the assumption that Down's Syndrome is a condition we should erradicate. I work in paediatric surgery; quite a few of our patients have Down's (as there are associated problems that require surgical intervention) and so I have a fair bit of experience of children and adolescents with Down's syndrome. I think it very dangerous and incideous that we are by implication counting them as not deserving of life...
quote:Why?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
No, I think it really does.
quote:The metaphors you are using in your question do not make sense.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is this just bad gunnery? I mean, they just aimed at the wrong target, or at the right target, but with bad elevation? But from their point of view, it was the right target.
quote:My interpretation of what quetzalcoatl was talking about was when a person or group has previously held one opinion to be "objectively" right - such as burning heretics - but now holds that opinion to be wrong. How do they rationalise the previous position that at the time in question was to them so evidently right but now is so evidently wrong? I think the bad gunnery argument would be something like:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The metaphors you are using in your question do not make sense.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is this just bad gunnery? I mean, they just aimed at the wrong target, or at the right target, but with bad elevation? But from their point of view, it was the right target.
Compare. I believe morality is objective. Is that just bad gunnery? Am I aiming at the wrong target or at the right target but with bad elevation? From my point of view it's the right target.
If that question has an answer then so does yours. If it doesn't, yours doesn't either.
quote:Er, yes. Which is the case for everyone. Which is what I said.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not true of everyone. There's one exception. My subjective opinions are subjectively true for me.
quote:You obey their laws though. Which, by extension, means you respect the process by which their opinions have been selected as the ones we will all live by during this five-year period.
Recognising that Cameron and Osborne have won the election doesn't mean I respect their opinions.
quote:Well, no. The "common" part expands it to "moral opinions that basically agree with the majority of people".
Subjectively speaking, common decency means holding moral opinions that basically agree with me.
quote:How on earth do you intend to implement your beliefs if nobody else respects their validity in the first place?
If there's a conflict between implementing my political beliefs and having my political beliefs respected, it would be a bit egotistic of me to go for the latter.
quote:False, because once again respecting the validity of someone's beliefs in no way precludes trying to change their mind.
As things stand, you respecting my political beliefs is just code for the status quo.
quote:What's unreasonable about reasoning about subjective facts?
If political debate isn't reasoning about objective facts, if it's only pretending to be reasonable,
quote:Well I certainly do. I have had many, sometimes fierce, disagreements over politics with many posters on this board, but never once have I denied their basic right to hold the opinions they do. Even right now, while I am disagreeing with your opinion I respect its validity.
One doesn't want one's political opponents to respect one's opinions.
quote:But conditions which cause suffering or limit amenity ARE undesirable. Obviously so.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The problem with antenatal screening to eliminate a condition is that it sets up a paradigm that such a condition is undesirable.
quote:Everything you say here relates to how we treat actual people with disability. That, it seems to me, is a completely different question to how we treat things which (on the world view we are assuming applies) aren’t yet people.
Something I've found helpful is the so-called social model of disability vs the medical model. These frame the issues in a way that I think is very helpful to understand our unconscious assumptions towards disability…
quote:I don’t think it does. The reason being that potential people, who might exist in the future, have no individual rights. People who actually exist do have individual rights, and love and are loved as individuals. Attitudes to foetuses aren’t attitudes to people, if you don’t think foetuses are people, and nor do they necessarily imply an attitude to people.
Arguing that a foetus with Down's should be aborted clearly devalues anyone with Down's. YMMV
quote:You could maybe change that to "screen for Down's syndrome antenatally with the intention of aborting a foetus with Down's syndrome". I see no ethical problem with screening for Down's while already knowing that you'll keep the baby either way.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
When we screen for Down's syndrome antenatally we are saying that we don't think people should be born with Down's if we can avoid it.
quote:That might matter objectively speaking, if we put extreme emphasis on the word might. We'll probably never know in this life.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Er, yes. Which is the case for everyone. Which is what I said.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not true of everyone. There's one exception. My subjective opinions are subjectively true for me.
quote:We do not all live by Cameron and Osborne's opinions, I can assure you. We haven't selected their opinions as the ones we'll live by. That's what makes this a liberal democracy.
quote:You obey their laws though. Which, by extension, means you respect the process by which their opinions have been selected as the ones we will all live by during this five-year period.
Recognising that Cameron and Osborne have won the election doesn't mean I respect their opinions.
And that's all I'm talking about. I've never been talking about "respect" as in "approval". As I've tried to make clear many times.
quote:The majority of which people? If I'm living in the American South does common decency include homophobia?
quote:Well, no. The "common" part expands it to "moral opinions that basically agree with the majority of people".
Subjectively speaking, common decency means holding moral opinions that basically agree with me.
quote:If that were the case I'd be shit out of luck.
quote:How on earth do you intend to implement your beliefs if nobody else respects their validity in the first place?
If there's a conflict between implementing my political beliefs and having my political beliefs respected, it would be a bit egotistic of me to go for the latter.
quote:Refusing to use climbing aids in no way precludes climbing mountains. But climbing mountains is a lot easier if you use climbing aids.
quote:False, because once again respecting the validity of someone's beliefs in no way precludes trying to change their mind.
As things stand, you respecting my political beliefs is just code for the status quo.
quote:How many children did Lady Macbeth have? If two plus two equals five, what does four minus two equal? Is Robb Stark's wife dead or alive, and what is or was her name? Is Sherlock Holmes dead or alive at the end of the short story the Reichenbach Falls?
quote:What's unreasonable about reasoning about subjective facts?
If political debate isn't reasoning about objective facts, if it's only pretending to be reasonable,
quote:Well I certainly do. I have had many, sometimes fierce, disagreements over politics with many posters on this board, but never once have I denied their basic right to hold the opinions they do. Even right now, while I am disagreeing with your opinion I respect its validity. [/QB][/QUOTE]
One doesn't want one's political opponents to respect one's opinions.
quote:Dawkins is using the wrong weapons in the wrong battle. Even if he has selected the right target and his aim is true, the outcome will not be that which he desires.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The metaphors you are using in your question do not make sense.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is this just bad gunnery? I mean, they just aimed at the wrong target, or at the right target, but with bad elevation? But from their point of view, it was the right target.
Compare. I believe morality is objective. Is that just bad gunnery? Am I aiming at the wrong target or at the right target but with bad elevation? From my point of view it's the right target.
If that question has an answer then so does yours. If it doesn't, yours doesn't either.
quote:That's a good point, and I'm guilty of being slightly lazy with my explanation.
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:You could maybe change that to "screen for Down's syndrome antenatally with the intention of aborting a foetus with Down's syndrome". I see no ethical problem with screening for Down's while already knowing that you'll keep the baby either way.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
When we screen for Down's syndrome antenatally we are saying that we don't think people should be born with Down's if we can avoid it.
If I were going to have a deaf child, for instance, I'd want to know beforehand. Not so I could terminate a pregnancy, but so I could be prepared well in advance for taking care of their needs. If it were possible to screen for any and all medical conditions pre-birth, it'd be very useful. The only ethical issue is what one does with that information.
quote:Sort of, but no. You see for me there is a qualitative and vital difference between saying peanut allergy is undesirable to saying someone with peanut allergy should never have been born.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:But conditions which cause suffering or limit amenity ARE undesirable. Obviously so.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The problem with antenatal screening to eliminate a condition is that it sets up a paradigm that such a condition is undesirable.
You seem to be inferring a progression from “this condition is undesirable” through “people with this condition are less entitled to rights and dignity than others” and ending up at “these people do not deserve to live”. I just don’t see that this follows.
Can we agree that having a severe peanut allergy is undesirable? And if we can agree that, does it remotely follow that people who have such an allergy have thereby forfeited the slightest amount of our respect? Surely not.
The same logic applies to every other condition that has (net) adverse consequences, whether that’s mild inconvenience or excruciating death. It’s better not to be afflicted with them, but they in no way diminish human worth.
quote:Well Dawkins takes the same view as Fred Singer on infanticide (link) and hence human rights are imparted only above a threshold of cognitive function. So no I don't think we can come to that agreement.
Originally posted by Eliab:
We agree (and does anyone seriously doubt that Richard Dawkins would agree?) that disabled people have exactly the same inherent worth and dignity as any other people, are exactly as deserving of life, and have every right to be included in society, which in turn imposes a duty on that society to include them. That’s not in issue. Dawkins is talking about things, not people, on his world-view, and things which have little or no inherent worth or dignity, and certainly no rights to be considered. That those things can later become people, and be invested with human value as a result, does not mean (for him) that this value is projected back in time to when they were tiny balls of unconscious tissue, nor does it mean that his relative disregard for those tiny balls of tissue can be projected forward to when we are dealing with a human infant (or adult).
quote:Quetzalcoatl disagrees with me, so he has to rationalise a difference in position.
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
We aimed to do God's will
We thought burning heretics was God's will
Turns out we were wrong
Therefore we missed.
I don't think your explanation about your own belief in objectivity fits the bad gunnery thing as it's a belief you still hold and so you're not attempting to rationalise a change in position.
quote:I agree with you.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Sort of, but no. You see for me there is a qualitative and vital difference between saying peanut allergy is undesirable to saying someone with peanut allergy should never have been born.
quote:For sure. I've already conceded that it was insensitive.
And for me the key is that people with various disabilities would understand the statement like this.
quote:A little bit, yes, though understandably so. Now that you exist, you can look back and think “that foetus was me”, and be glad that it wasn't aborted, and that 'you' survived to be born. You can in consequence feel threatened or affronted by calls to abort similar foetuses. I get the feeling. I might even share it. I just don't think its logical, nor do I think it fair to assume that the feeling of reduced value is shared by the person advocating the idea.
Imagine for a second that we have a policy of screening for short-sightedness (my personal affliction) and offered termination to mothers whose babies would be born with my affliction. Do you think it unreasonable that I might feel less valued as a consequence?
quote:Certainly.
Furthermore, part of what I was reaching at here is that many people feel that you can't separate Down's from the person as easily as you might an allergy.
quote:I'm unconvinced. I'm sure Dawkins does take Singer seriously, but the clip has him conducting an interview, not giving a lecture, and actually cuts him off mid-sentence when he's clearly just about to qualify a statement in apparent agreement with Singer's controversial views on infanticide. I'm certainly not prepared to accept that as evidence of Dawkins endorsing the killing of babies.
Well Dawkins takes the same view as Fred Singer on infanticide (link) and hence human rights are imparted only above a threshold of cognitive function.
quote:Fair enough. That was the result of a 3 minute Google search. I've heard/read Dawkins espousing that point of view elsewhere but that was the first link I could find. It is in line with what I know to be his position.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm unconvinced. I'm sure Dawkins does take Singer seriously, but the clip has him conducting an interview, not giving a lecture, and actually cuts him off mid-sentence when he's clearly just about to qualify a statement in apparent agreement with Singer's controversial views on infanticide. I'm certainly not prepared to accept that as evidence of Dawkins endorsing the killing of babies.
quote:I agree with all of this except "acknowledged." If you don't acknowledge that someone has such-and-such opinion, you are infantalizing them, which is a way of denying their right to hold the opinion.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If someone has the right to hold an opinion, that means that nobody is allowed to coerce them out of holding it. Nothing more.
I have had many, sometimes fierce, disagreements over politics with many posters on this board, but never once have I denied their basic right to hold the opinions they do. Even right now, while I am disagreeing with your opinion I respect its validity.
It doesn't mean that they have the right for anybody to acknowledge their opinions, or to take them seriously, or not to have their opinions ridiculed or parodied, or not to be insulted.
quote:Hang on, this is rubbish. Gay rights has gotten where it is because younger people, having grown up with openly gay people, have listened to reason and observed the evidence, have come to the conclusion that past attitudes are bollocks.
As things stand, you respecting my political beliefs is just code for the status quo. Gay rights activists didn't get where they are today by respecting homophobia.
They didn't get where they are today by reasoning or evidence. They got where they are today by heaping contempt on homophobes until more and more homophobes are ashamed to emit their opinions in public.
quote:If we believe that some disagreement is about objective matters of fact, then we need some explanation about how it is possible for at least one side to be in error and another about how they might resolve it. I thought that was your point. I also thought that by giving explanations of how people might have changed their minds, I'd explained that.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can see how people change their minds, but this is not about objectivity, is it?
quote:I don't respond to every crackpot statement made on these boards. I probably respond to far more than I'm obliged to. Not being a host I don't even have to read most of them.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you don't acknowledge that someone has such-and-such opinion, you are infantalizing them, which is a way of denying their right to hold the opinion.
quote:Marvin and I are debating under the premise (which I don't share) that there are no objective ethical facts available to us. If there is no available objective fact about the rightness or wrongness of gay rights, then listening to reason and observing the evidence cannot shift someone's opinion on gay rights; any more than they can shift someone's opinion on whether vanilla ice cream is nicer than chocolate.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hang on, this is rubbish. Gay rights has gotten where it is because younger people, having grown up with openly gay people, have listened to reason and observed the evidence, have come to the conclusion that past attitudes are bollocks.
quote:If you are not in discussion with them or about them, nothing. I should have made that context clear. If however you are talking with them about the topic and refuse to acknowledge their opinions/positions, you are treating them like less than competent adults.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What am I obliged to concretely do to acknowledge that someone has an opinion?
quote:I'll see your recycled psalmist and raise you a KJV Matthew 5:22.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.'
I am aware that Richard Dawkins is an educated man but he is a bloody idiot.
His latest outrage is as reported here and just goes to show what an insensitive, inhumane piece of heartless, callous crap he really is.
quote:Compared to what I'd like to call him, it's downright sweetness-and-light.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Calling him inhumane and heartless, callous crap is hardly charitable though is it - are we in mote and beam territory?
quote:I'm probably not the first to be amused at atheists quoting from scripture. Without God to provide the principles and expression of same, where would they be?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Calling him inhumane and heartless, callous crap is hardly charitable though is it - are we in mote and beam territory?
quote:They can quote it as much as they like. They can explore it and help Christians understand what it actually says, rather than what we want it to say. He doesn't have to believe that the bible is divinely inspired scripture to read it or quote from it - I will read and quote from his books without considering them to be the works of someone who knows what he is talking about.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm probably not the first to be amused at atheists quoting from scripture. Without God to provide the principles and expression of same, where would they be?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Calling him inhumane and heartless, callous crap is hardly charitable though is it - are we in mote and beam territory?
quote:Are you sure you're right?
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem comes when he assumes that his interpretation is the "right" one. Actually, most of the problems come when anyone assume their interpretations are the "right" one. They aren't.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:He was quoting the Bible, not God. Important difference. To HWR, he is quoting a paraphrase of some ancient middle eastern dudes. Using the followers of said dudes own philosophy against them. Quite appropriate, IMO.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm probably not the first to be amused at atheists quoting from scripture. Without God to provide the principles and expression of same, where would they be?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Calling him inhumane and heartless, callous crap is hardly charitable though is it - are we in mote and beam territory?
quote:For me the problem comes from clucking one's tongue at Christians for not living up to something he himself doesn't really believe in.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem comes when he assumes that his interpretation is the "right" one. Actually, most of the problems come when anyone assume their interpretations are the "right" one. They aren't.
quote:My bible interpretation is not "right". Valid, yes, but that doesn't mean I am right and those who disagree with me are wrong.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Are you sure you're right?
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem comes when he assumes that his interpretation is the "right" one. Actually, most of the problems come when anyone assume their interpretations are the "right" one. They aren't.
quote:Of course. And I have the right to ignore hypocrites.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A non-Christian certainly has the right within a conversation to say you are not following your own stated guidelines.
quote:No. Although in my experience they are most of the time being incredible dicks in doing so, in the "nanner nanner boo boo" sense. I have also been abused by atheists who said that as a Christian I was not allowed to even tell them to stop, but must be their doormat and take their abuse, because the Bible said so.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Are you saying a non-Christian is inherently a hypocrite for calling a Christian on their behaviour?
quote:An atheist is yes. Because they don't believe what Christian's believe.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Are you saying a non-Christian is inherently a hypocrite for calling a Christian on their behaviour?
quote:I don't agree. It is pointing out that a person is not following the rules they claim to live by. If I claim a standard, it is perfectly reasonable to be challenged by that standard.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:An atheist is yes. Because they don't believe what Christian's believe.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Are you saying a non-Christian is inherently a hypocrite for calling a Christian on their behaviour?
Bit like giving marriage advice when you've never been married.
quote:That's a good example, but while one need not be a footballer, one does needs to understand football. Moreover while offside calls and contact fouls are clearly defined in the laws, they aren't always adjudged correctly on the field, and there are cases that won't be understood even by the most patient observers however well-equipped.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I don't agree. It is pointing out that a person is not following the rules they claim to live by. If I claim a standard, it is perfectly reasonable to be challenged by that standard.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:An atheist is yes. Because they don't believe what Christian's believe.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Are you saying a non-Christian is inherently a hypocrite for calling a Christian on their behaviour?
Bit like giving marriage advice when you've never been married.
Yes, the challenger should understand the standard, see mousethief's post.
There are examples which are simple and those where some experience mitigates.
To use a sport example, there is a difference between an offsides call and a contact foul. Any observer can see the offside, one needn't have ever played, merely read the rule. But in judging whether contact was accidental or intentional, it often helps to be a participant or long time observer.
quote:And the challenger should understand whether or not that person claims to live by that standard. Christianity is vast, and atheists tend to latch on to whatever tiny corner of Christianity they're familiar with, usually fundamentalism which produces an inordinate number of the former-Christian type atheist, and insist that all Christians follow THEIR stunted and self-serving understanding of Christian ethics.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is pointing out that a person is not following the rules they claim to live by. If I claim a standard, it is perfectly reasonable to be challenged by that standard.
Yes, the challenger should understand the standard, see mousethief's post.
quote:Oh yes, because single people have never been anywhere near a marriage in their entire lives and know nothing about them, right?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bit like giving marriage advice when you've never been married.
quote:I'm a salesman - asking questions in a format that the customer can readily understand (I assume most Christians have some understanding of the mote and beam story) is an ingrained, standard technique for provoking thought - though clearly it doesn't always work (so I won't go on about "turning the other cheek" then?).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:No. Although in my experience they are most of the time being incredible dicks in doing so, in the "nanner nanner boo boo" sense. I have also been abused by atheists who said that as a Christian I was not allowed to even tell them to stop, but must be their doormat and take their abuse, because the Bible said so.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Are you saying a non-Christian is inherently a hypocrite for calling a Christian on their behaviour?
I admit I don't have a lot of patience for atheists trying to teach me my own religion.
quote:So claiming to follow the Christ whilst calling someone a fool in defiance of the Sermon on the Mount's alleged preacher is not hypocritical but pointing out what was done somehow is?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:An atheist is yes. Because they don't believe what Christian's believe.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Are you saying a non-Christian isinherently a hypocrite for calling a Christian on their behaviour?
quote:Now you've switched target haven't you - I assume you are aiming at the Pope aren't you? He gave marriage advice to the twenty couples he married didn't he? - whilst I, of course, was a convinced, actively proselytizing Christian until the sheer irrationality of what I believed became unavoidable.
Bit like giving marriage advice when you've never been married.
quote:I didn't think I was defending Dawkins "his reported words are decidedly insensitive."
Originally posted by mousethief:
And there's also the point, which has somehow been dropped from this tangent of mine, that defending an atheist against Christians by attacking the Christian's morals is open to an accusation of special pleading, this instance being no exception (indeed being a poster child for the concept).
quote:What, pray tell, are you selling, other than nonsense?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I'm a salesman - asking questions in a format that the customer can readily understand (I assume most Christians have some understanding of the mote and beam story) is an ingrained, standard technique for provoking thought - though clearly it doesn't always work (so I won't go on about "turning the other cheek" then?).
quote:But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
As to trying to teach you your religion - I think that your comment illustrates one of the underlying weaknesses of Christianity - its hydra-headed, shape-shifting, amorphous insubstantiality. Your version of Christianity is different to others', literally thousands of others', versions - my position is that the basic (and generally common) concepts - God, Heaven, Soul, Prayer, Sin (Original and non-original), Redemption et al are all so contradictory and insubstantial that all religion based on them is equally dubious. Arguing about detail may define your religion but it does not mean that the basics are valid - merely that they are assumed/ignored.
quote:No, it's tu quoque.
and suggesting the pot is calling the kettle black (another phrase in common usage irrespective of its origin) is not special pleading is it?
quote:I apologize that our religion doesn't suit your needs for simplemindedness, and makes itself hard for you to put into a simple box. We'll get right on that.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I think that your comment illustrates one of the underlying weaknesses of Christianity - its hydra-headed, shape-shifting, amorphous insubstantiality.
quote:That's nice. Thanks for sharing. Who else would like to say what their opinion is without supporting it or arguing for it? Sarah, I see your hand up.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
my position is that the basic (and generally common) concepts - God, Heaven, Soul, Prayer, Sin (Original and non-original), Redemption et al are all so contradictory and insubstantial that all religion based on them is equally dubious.
quote:It's amorphous because it's bloody hard to discern God's will on earth as it is in heaven. Bit like trying to discern best practise in a business or democracy.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
As to trying to teach you your religion - I think that your comment illustrates one of the underlying weaknesses of Christianity - its hydra-headed, shape-shifting, amorphous insubstantiality. Your version of Christianity is different to others', literally thousands of others', versions - my position is that the basic (and generally common) concepts - God, Heaven, Soul, Prayer, Sin (Original and non-original), Redemption et al are all so contradictory and insubstantial that all religion based on them is equally dubious. Arguing about detail may define your religion but it does not mean that the basics are valid - merely that they are assumed/ignored.
quote:So you gave up trying to find alternatives within your tradition and decided on an even more irrational choice: atheism.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Now you've switched target haven't you - I assume you are aiming at the Pope aren't you? He gave marriage advice to the twenty couples he married didn't he? - whilst I, of course, was a convinced, actively proselytizing Christian until the sheer irrationality of what I believed became unavoidable.
quote:Ironically, as a single clergyperson I have often offered marriage advice to couples getting married - and even those who have been married. Perhaps Evensong has not - as yet - worked alongside clergy who have to do this as a matter of course, whether they are, themselves, married or not? Or indeed has never had anything to do with any kind of counsellors, volunteers or various others involved in the lives of others whose life experience isn't exactly mirrored in their own lives. Some of the best advice I ever received on my love-life was from a celibate Benedictine monk.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh yes, because single people have never been anywhere near a marriage in their entire lives and know nothing about them, right?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bit like giving marriage advice when you've never been married.
We're surrounded by the bloody things, you idiot. I grew up in the middle of one for a couple of decades.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Yes, atheists and anyone else are free to do so, but they should at least take notice that Christians are aware that they do the wrong thing* (to which Christians give the label 'sin') and that our reason for following Jesus is acknowledgement that we can't put this right through our own efforts. I think that goes a long way towards defining Christianity.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And of course atheists are free - and entitled - to call Christians on not living up to basic Christian behaviour. If Christians are commanded not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal etc, and they make themselves notorious by doing these things, one doesn't have to be a Christian in order to find this behaviour offensive, or to have the right to say 'stop it'.
quote:Why? The divorced person knows about 3 different marriages. The person who's been married for 50 years knows about 1 marriage and may make the erroneous assumption that all marriages are just like theirs.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bad analogy perhaps, but I'm much more likely to take marriage advice seriously from someone that has been married for fifty years than from someone who has been divorced three times or never married.....hhhmmmnnn?
quote:Leaving the rest of it on the side, I find this comment very odd. I recognize Mousethief, Evensong, Rossweisse, Grits, and a zillion other people from very different traditions as fellow Christians (and they, me) precisely BECAUSE the basic shape of Christianity is exactly the same and thumpably solid in spite of minor variations in hide color and pattern. A cow is a cow is a cow is a cow, regardless of whether it's white with spots or brown or shaggy. There's no likelihood of me mixing it up with a carnation. In the same way, a Christian is a Christian is a Christian. Other Christians are highly, highly unlikely to mistake a Muslim or a Jain or a do-it-yourselfer spiritualist for a Christian. We recognize the species (and so do most atheists and agnostics, for that matter). We may bitch about one another's spot pattern, or argue whether long hair or short is closer to the archtypically perfect Christian/cow. But we don't put each other entirely out of the faith family unless we're in a mood to be assholes. Once we calm down, we know better.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
As to trying to teach you your religion - I think that your comment illustrates one of the underlying weaknesses of Christianity - its hydra-headed, shape-shifting, amorphous insubstantiality. Your version of Christianity is different to others', literally thousands of others', versions ...
quote:And may have no idea why they failed. Someone without experience of a good marriage is to be preferred over someone with a good marriage? Makes no sense. Maybe, if they have any self-awareness, they can tell you what not to do. Can they tell you what to do? I'll save my money for the track.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Why? The divorced person knows about 3 different marriages.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bad analogy perhaps, but I'm much more likely to take marriage advice seriously from someone that has been married for fifty years than from someone who has been divorced three times or never married.....hhhmmmnnn?
quote:Sure. I just find Evensong's simplification of the whole question of marriage counselling down to 1 single criterion to be profoundly irritating.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And may have no idea why they failed. Someone without experience of a good marriage is to be preferred over someone with a good marriage? Makes no sense. Maybe, if they have any self-awareness, they can tell you what not to do. Can they tell you what to do? I'll save my money for the track.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Why? The divorced person knows about 3 different marriages.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bad analogy perhaps, but I'm much more likely to take marriage advice seriously from someone that has been married for fifty years than from someone who has been divorced three times or never married.....hhhmmmnnn?
quote:And it is to this that an outsider might address comment. This core is not truly difficult to comprehend. It is certainly how I shape my interaction with Christians.
BECAUSE the basic shape of Christianity is exactly the same and thumpably solid in spite of minor variations in hide color and pattern.
quote:(Half x-posted with orfeo's better analogy.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:And it is to this that an outsider might address comment. This core is not truly difficult to comprehend. It is certainly how I shape my interaction with Christians.
BECAUSE the basic shape of Christianity is exactly the same and thumpably solid in spite of minor variations in hide color and pattern.
-------------
To the marriage example: a marriage is a relationship. There are aspects of marriage that are different to some other relationships, yes. But this does not make it some arcane institution only visible from the inside.
One could suggest, with as much validity, that a person trapped in a maze of their own is not necessarily the best person to guide you out of yours.
quote:There are some gray area. Are Mormons Christian? Are Unitarians? Are Quakers? Is a yak a cow? Is a bison?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leaving the rest of it on the side, I find this comment very odd. I recognize Mousethief, Evensong, Rossweisse, Grits, and a zillion other people from very different traditions as fellow Christians (and they, me) precisely BECAUSE the basic shape of Christianity is exactly the same and thumpably solid in spite of minor variations in hide color and pattern. A cow is a cow is a cow is a cow, regardless of whether it's white with spots or brown or shaggy. There's no likelihood of me mixing it up with a carnation. In the same way, a Christian is a Christian is a Christian. Other Christians are highly, highly unlikely to mistake a Muslim or a Jain or a do-it-yourselfer spiritualist for a Christian.
quote:There are grey areas indeed, but most Christians would agree on what the grey areas are, just as they agree on what the "Dead Horse" issues are.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:There are some gray area. Are Mormons Christian? Are Unitarians? Are Quakers? Is a yak a cow? Is a bison?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leaving the rest of it on the side, I find this comment very odd. I recognize Mousethief, Evensong, Rossweisse, Grits, and a zillion other people from very different traditions as fellow Christians (and they, me) precisely BECAUSE the basic shape of Christianity is exactly the same and thumpably solid in spite of minor variations in hide color and pattern. A cow is a cow is a cow is a cow, regardless of whether it's white with spots or brown or shaggy. There's no likelihood of me mixing it up with a carnation. In the same way, a Christian is a Christian is a Christian. Other Christians are highly, highly unlikely to mistake a Muslim or a Jain or a do-it-yourselfer spiritualist for a Christian.
quote:We are all trapped in mazes of our own, whatever faith or non-faith we have.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One could suggest, with as much validity, that a person trapped in a maze of their own is not necessarily the best person to guide you out of yours.
quote:You complained about my choice of words – I explained why I used them and you come back with this?
What, pray tell, are you selling, other than nonsense?
quote:So what are the basics of your religion?
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
quote:Lose the spade and stop digging.
No, it's tu quoque.
quote:But at the root it is simple, and, IMO, it doesn’t make sense. Clearly religious people think so too because they construct a plethora of complexities (many of them mutually incompatible and/or unacceptable to other religious people) to try to explain what doesn’t work. In reality making something more complicated may hide the failure but it doesn’t fix it.
I apologize that our religion doesn't suit your needs for simplemindedness, and makes itself hard for you to put into a simple box. We'll get right on that.
quote:Technically the need to provide extraordinary evidence is incumbent upon those who make extraordinary claims. Since that ain’t going to happen I’ll make you an offer - if you wish to know how I support my opinions you, or anyone else who cares, can PM me and we can continue (no doubt much to the relief of Hosts) there.
That's nice. Thanks for sharing. Who else would like to say what their opinion is without supporting it or arguing for it? Sarah, I see your hand up.
quote:I agree - because business and democracy, as with religion, are constructs of minds which evolved to survive in small groups within the African forests.
It's amorphous because it's bloody hard to discern God's will on earth as it is in heaven. Bit like trying to discern best practise in a business or democracy.
quote:Religious special pleading? When religious people give up trying to persuade atheists (and members of the “wrong” religions) that their brand of belief is necessary I’ll stop pointing out the irrationalities, as I see them, of those unsupported religious beliefs. In the meantime “what right do I have” – exactly the same as yours – no more but no less either.
And if you've given up trying, what right do you have to critique others that do try? (that's what I meant by hypocritical - even if it's not quite the right definition.)
quote:Your definition of life? – perhaps. Some things are black or white (there is a supernature/spirit world/god(s) or there isn’t) and the shades of grey are sometimes simply smokescreens of varying intensities. Should I spend time, effort and money pursuing the god wraith? I look for evidence and find none that holds water – move on and try to use my time, effort and money in ways that contribute to the greater good. In my terms I’ve certainly not given up on life – though one could argue that it eventually will give up on me (or what me has become by then).
Do you give up when things aren't black and white? Do you give up when you face complexity?
If so, then you've given up on life.
quote:Atheism isn’t a choice – it’s what is left when one is unable to find any reason to be anything else. Atheism or blind, unreasoning (if you would be a Christian first pluck out the eye of reason : Martin Luther) faith – and I can’t do faith because, to me, that would be being dishonest. Don't forget - I did faith once and the results were not good, for me and, more importantly, for some of the people I've interacted with since.
So you gave up trying to find alternatives within your tradition and decided on an even more irrational choice: atheism.
quote:I’m unaware of having a problem that religion could solve – care to enlighten me?
I applaud you for giving up on what didn't make sense. But you still haven't solved your problem.
quote:Christianity gives a meaningful structure and metanarrrative with which to interpret ourselves and the world.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I’m unaware of having a problem that religion could solve – care to enlighten me?
I applaud you for giving up on what didn't make sense. But you still haven't solved your problem.
quote:Kinda looks like I did, yeah. Why do you ask?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You complained about my choice of words – I explained why I used them and you come back with this?
What, pray tell, are you selling, other than nonsense?
quote:God in Christ, reconciling himself to he world and the world to himself.
quote:So what are the basics of your religion?
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
quote:Lose the tu quoque and I might think about it (but of course you don't, as shown later in this post). I will give you this: you don't say "I know you are but what am I?" You have at least grown out of THAT expression of the genre. Would that you would grow out of the fallacy entirely. It is one I particularly dislike. Not that that matters, of course.
quote:Lose the spade and stop digging.
No, it's tu quoque.
quote:People make things complicated because they are people and people have an innate tendency to change things, either making them more complicated if they're simple, or more simple if they're complicated. It's in our DNA. I suppose if you have a preconceived notion that religious people have something to hide, you will chalk this up to that. You appear to have a need to blame a lot of things on religious people, and make them look bad.
quote:But at the root it is simple, and, IMO, it doesn’t make sense. Clearly religious people think so too because they construct a plethora of complexities (many of them mutually incompatible and/or unacceptable to other religious people) to try to explain what doesn’t work. In reality making something more complicated may hide the failure but it doesn’t fix it.
I apologize that our religion doesn't suit your needs for simplemindedness, and makes itself hard for you to put into a simple box. We'll get right on that.
quote:Yawn. Is that the best you can do? You spout a bunch of nonsense, and then when called on it, go for the tu quoque. You're very good at it, I might add. But it is tiresome.
quote:Technically the need to provide extraordinary evidence is incumbent upon those who make extraordinary claims.
That's nice. Thanks for sharing. Who else would like to say what their opinion is without supporting it or arguing for it? Sarah, I see your hand up.
quote:Um, no. If you can't defend your position in public, I'm not interested.
Since that ain’t going to happen I’ll make you an offer - if you wish to know how I support my opinions you, or anyone else who cares, can PM me and we can continue (no doubt much to the relief of Hosts) there.
quote:That it will never come again is what makes life so sweet - Emily Dickinson
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Christianity gives a meaningful structure and metanarrrative with which to interpret ourselves and the world.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I’m unaware of having a problem that religion could solve – care to enlighten me?
I applaud you for giving up on what didn't make sense. But you still haven't solved your problem.
Atheism rejects that particular metanarrative but has nothing official or rational to replace it with. It is mainly a reactionary stance. Hence atheists simply have to devise or adopt another story. We can't live without stories and structures.
One such story is to tear down another's story. That can provide meaning for some. But that's a negative (reactionary) story rather than a positive one and ultimately empty IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:quote:Kinda looks like I did, yeah. Why do you ask? Because I cannot see how it is either rational or relevant.
quote:You complained about my choice of words – I explained why I used them and you come back with this?
What, pray tell, are you selling, other than nonsense?
quote:God in Christ, reconciling himself to he world and the world to himself. That’s jargon isn’t it? You believe in something which you define as the Christian God, you believe in something you define as Christ and you think that there are two separate steps to a reconciliation of some sort. I know I said basic but that’s threadbare isn’t it? What do you mean by God and Christ – how does this reconciliation occur, what caused it and why is it important?
quote:So what are the basics of your religion?
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
quote:People make things complicated because they are people and people have an innate tendency to change things, either making them more complicated if they're simple, or more simple if they're complicated. It's in our DNA. I don’t think this is right – got any evidence for it?
quote:But at the root it is simple, and, IMO, it doesn’t make sense. Clearly religious people think so too because they construct a plethora of complexities (many of them mutually incompatible and/or unacceptable to other religious people) to try to explain what doesn’t work. In reality making something more complicated may hide the failure but it doesn’t fix it.
I apologize that our religion doesn't suit your needs for simplemindedness, and makes itself hard for you to put into a simple box. We'll get right on that.
quote:Yawn. Is that the best you can do? You spout a bunch of nonsense, and then when called on it, go for the tu quoque. You're very good at it, I might add. But it is tiresome.
quote:Technically the need to provide extraordinary evidence is incumbent upon those who make extraordinary claims.
I suppose if you have a preconceived notion that religious people have something to hide, you will chalk this up to that. You appear to have a need to blame a lot of things on religious people, and make them look bad.I think there is a natural tendency to resist exposure of error through a process sometimes referred to as “bullshit”: it is by no means confined to religious people.
(Prediction: response: "No, they make themselves look bad when blah blah blah.")
And why my complications being unacceptable to some other religious person somehow shows them to be ... what? Why did you bring that up? What does it prove? What part does it play in your argument? Or it it just thrown in there for word count? It illustrates part of the difficulty (for me) in taking religion seriously – if Christians can’t agree about Christianity (or Muslims about Islam etc.) finding the true religion (were there one) would be like playing pin the tail on the donkey.quote:That's nice. Thanks for sharing. Who else would like to say what their opinion is without supporting it or arguing for it? Sarah, I see your hand up.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:A loving god who creates the life he cares for knowing that he’s going to cast that dear soul into Hell (whatever that amounts to – it means at minimum deliberately making something that will suffer – rather like loving puppies by pulling their legs off .
God,
quote:a concept which requires such modification of humans that they are no longer emotionally human, created by a god who needs adoration from those he claims to love. Unless you subscribe to the Mormon concept of Heaven - which is still highly unpalatable.
Heaven.
quote:An insubstantial, unevidenced concept whose only purpose seems to be to provide snake-oil salesman with a sickness to cure.
Soul.
quote:Generally defined as asking a god who can only do good to do something else. That or flattering the deity because he’s so perfect he demands that you do so.
Prayer
quote:I’m unable to go to Heaven because something that was done thousands of years ago pissed off a just god who had prevented his creations knowing that there was a difference between right and wrong until after they’d done what was subsequently declared wrong. It's an odd idea of justice don’t you think?
Sin (Original
quote:Sin is defined as a crime against God ; no God – no sin.
and non-original)
quote:If there was an almighty god who wanted to put right things he perceived as being wrong he could do so without the charade of thirty years on earth terminating in a violent, humiliating blood sacrifice and a weekend trip to Hell – it’s called forgiveness and humans are supposed to do it so why not God?
Redemption
quote:Your turn then is it?
et al are all so contradictory and insubstantial that all religion based on them is equally dubious.
quote:Um, no. If you can't defend your position in public, I'm not interested.
Since that ain’t going to happen I’ll make you an offer - if you wish to know how I support my opinions you, or anyone else who cares, can PM me and we can continue (no doubt much to the relief of Hosts) there.
quote:I am - are you?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good Lord. I'd have thought we were past ye old false dichotomy of faith in God vs faith in science.
quote:Depends on the definition of God doesn't it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that a lot of atheists are agnostic. I mean, they don't know that there is no God, they just don't have that belief.
quote:An atheist is certain and agnostic is uncertain, no?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that a lot of atheists are agnostic. I mean, they don't know that there is no God, they just don't have that belief.
quote:Depends where you are when you start using your logic and reason doesn't it. Many better exponents than I use logic and reason to convince themselves of the correctness of a diverse range of religious beliefs. When I was a Christian my killer response (aged 12?) to anyone telling me that God didn't make the world would have been to demand to know who they thought did make it if God didn't. Now my basic position has changed - the question would be "how do you think the universe came about" - all discussion of "who" has to wait until the fact of a "who" has been established.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, both Hugh and Evensong have it skewed.
Hugh would seem to present that logic and reason lead to atheism. I know enough atheists to know that logic and reason are not necessarily handed out in every Atheist Welcome Basket.
quote:An atheist is one who has no belief in a god or gods. That's it - an absence of belief.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:An atheist is certain and agnostic is uncertain, no?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that a lot of atheists are agnostic. I mean, they don't know that there is no God, they just don't have that belief.
quote:I know agnostics who would disagree.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Agnostics are also atheists - atheists are not necessarily agnostic.
quote:A lesson that I would love the Shipmates keeping this damn thread alive to learn. Why are you all here? Can't you go out and frolic among the daisies? Or the traffic.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They got on with life
quote:And who decides what that is, and based upon what?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Logic and reason are much more likely to deliver us to a correct conclusion if we start from the right beginning.
quote:If that's how I defined all those words, I wouldn't believe either. I'm not going to go through them point by point because you've given polemics and insults rather than anything resembling support. And I have too much to do to get tied up in yet another bloody atheist's polemics.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Your turn then is it?
quote:So you really believe faith in God and faith in science are incompatible? Dude. Get over yourself. That's an extremely irrational a position to hold. History and reality does not agree with you.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I am - are you?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good Lord. I'd have thought we were past ye old false dichotomy of faith in God vs faith in science.
This is a results based reality - Science gets results - Religion (generally) encourages irrational expectations and then fails to deliver - sometimes to the detriment of those who need the fruits of science.
ISTM that science and religion can only be incompatible. Religion places humanity at the apogee of natural existence - Science says we're an accidental and temporary blip on an insignificant, wet, rocky lump in a backwater of a massive natural universe. Two irreconcilable views which fuel differing approaches to problem solving. Science says "I wonder.....", gets the evidence as best it can, analyses it, draws conclusions, tests the results, gets others to test the outcome and, sometimes reluctantly, accepts its findings. Religion says - the answer is "god(s)" and somewhere, often despite massive erudition and much faultless reasoning, between the question and the answer there has to be something we can't comprehend.
quote:"Getting on with life" is a story. The story accepted is simply an unexamined one that goes along with whatever cultural norm is currently the status quo.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure that atheists have to find another story, in any case. They don't have to go round singing the praises of science or anything really. My whole family were atheists, and I don't think they had a narrative which 'explained' things. They got on with life, had kids, fought in wars, were active in trade unions, got sick, and died. I suppose some of those things involve stories, such as trade unions, but they are not all-embracing stories.
Put it another way - I don't think atheists are trying to solve a problem - there isn't one. Sounds like a projection to me.
quote:Agnosticism is not the most rational theological point of view. It's simply a rational view if the theologically rational POV does not necessarily move you.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, the most rational theological POV is Agnosticism, not atheism or theism.
And not, I not not meaning Buddhism, just simply agnosticism.
quote:Don't know what "ag" literally means but the root of the word comes from the Greek gnosis which means to know. I think literally it means unknowable which strikes me as "we can't know" but it usually commonly referred to as "I don't know". There is a difference theologically. The "we can't know" seems to include the assumption that God/s exist but we can't know of them or about them This fits with certain Christian strands of thought called apophaticism.
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
quote:You're dumb. Did you know that?
HughWillRidmee: and what does Christianity offer – untestable stories of unrepeatable miraculous cures and five loaves and two small fishes.
quote:What does that mean, exactly?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Always leave room for holy envy.
quote:I don't know exactly, but I do like it. What I think it means is that whenever you have a discussion with someone who has another belief system, you leave room beforehand for the idea that there might be something in his system that you might admire, maybe even something you might be envious of. Whether this is the case or not, it does influence the way in which you'll be discussing things with this person, especially the way in which you'll formulate your questions.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What does that mean, exactly?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Always leave room for holy envy.
quote:So coming back, not reading the thread, and not say anything worth saying?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Just creeping in after reading pages 1 and 5 to say 'hear, hear!' to the posters I usually agree with.
quote:I agree. Both atheism and deism assert positions that are unprovable in material terms. And as much as atheists disagree with the idea, it's difficult for me to think of atheism as anything but another belief system on par with religion or spirituality. Their beliefs about the nature of reality just hang on different factors than those of deists. Deists can't prove the existence of God because he is outside material reality (even the Incarnation is presently unprovable). But they embrace deism philosophically and by personal experience. Atheists can't prove a negative. But they assert there is no God mostly because there is no material proof and also in reaction to what they see as the pretty silly and inconsistent beliefs of godbotherers. Agnostics just shrug and say, "We can't know" and leave it at that. Rational.
Agnosticism is the rational default position.
quote:1. It's Greek—but you probably knew that already.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'A' is a fascinating prefix in English, and I propose to deliver a ten page mini-dissertation on it, very soon, once I have made my libations to the great god of fire and lightning, Xolotl!
quote:Many atheists that I know would object to that. They say that they don't (and can't) assert that there is no God, but they have no belief in God.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Evensong:quote:I agree. Both atheism and deism assert positions that are unprovable in material terms. And as much as atheists disagree with the idea, it's difficult for me to think of atheism as anything but another belief system on par with religion or spirituality. Their beliefs about the nature of reality just hang on different factors than those of deists. Deists can't prove the existence of God because he is outside material reality (even the Incarnation is presently unprovable). But they embrace deism philosophically and by personal experience. Atheists can't prove a negative. But they assert there is no God mostly because there is no material proof and also in reaction to what they see as the pretty silly and inconsistent beliefs of godbotherers. Agnostics just shrug and say, "We can't know" and leave it at that. Rational.
Agnosticism is the rational default position.
quote:I can go with that. I guess since most of the atheists I've heard talk about it appear more dogmatic in their assertions that there is no God, I've gotten a rather skewed view of atheism.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Many atheists that I know would object to that. They say that they don't (and can't) assert that there is no God, but they have no belief in God.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Evensong:quote:I agree. Both atheism and deism assert positions that are unprovable in material terms. And as much as atheists disagree with the idea, it's difficult for me to think of atheism as anything but another belief system on par with religion or spirituality. Their beliefs about the nature of reality just hang on different factors than those of deists. Deists can't prove the existence of God because he is outside material reality (even the Incarnation is presently unprovable). But they embrace deism philosophically and by personal experience. Atheists can't prove a negative. But they assert there is no God mostly because there is no material proof and also in reaction to what they see as the pretty silly and inconsistent beliefs of godbotherers. Agnostics just shrug and say, "We can't know" and leave it at that. Rational.
Agnosticism is the rational default position.
There are 'hard' or 'strong' atheists who assert that there is no God, but in my experience, many atheists are agnostic atheists.
In fact, years ago, the Richard Dawkins forum (now defunct), did a survey, and a minority of people claimed that they knew there was no God; most were agnostic.
quote:That's all very well, but your first bullet point suggests that, if they are interested in dialogue, the Christians should actually volunteer their beliefs. But that rarely happens. Case in point on this thread with Mousethief in response to HughWillRidmee:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Krister Stendahl laid out three rules that are helpful for discussions between people of different belief systems:HughWilRidmee, you are constantly, consistently breaking rule 1. If you want to have a discussion with us, stop telling us what we believe. You're doing it in every single post. And every time you tell us what we believe, you're completely, utterly, gloriously wrong. This sets up strawmen that at least I have no interest in defending myself against. It's a dishonest way of discussing things.
- Let the believers define their religion, not their critics.
- Don’t compare your best with their worst.
- Always leave room for holy envy.
If you really want a conversation with us, ask us what we believe, don't tell us.
quote:, but no attempt to offer what they are instead. Which suggests to me that the first bullet point is simply something to hide behind.
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
quote:So if we say one thing, it's the other. And if we say the other, it's the first after all.
the basic shape of Christianity is exactly the same and thumpably solid in spite of minor variations in hide color and pattern.
quote:By the "common confusion", you mean the fact that a whole bloody lot of us think that having 2 different words is supposed to mean 2 different things?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A point I forgot, is that the Daily Mail did an article saying, 'Shock, Dawkins admits to not being an atheist, but an agnostic', neatly illustrating the common confusion. He is both.
quote:Not really. The way I read this case, HughWillRidmee broke Rule 1 by asserting what mousethief's beliefs are, rather than asking him. It is quite natural for mousethief to react negatively to this (especially in Hell), because breaking Rule 1 does come over as offensive, or at least as insensitive. I've been reading mousethief's posts on the Ship for over 12 years now, and in my view he never tries to hide what he believes in. In fact, he's rather open about it.
Pre-cambrian: That's all very well, but your first bullet point suggests that, if they are interested in dialogue, the Christians should actually volunteer their beliefs. But that rarely happens. Case in point on this thread with Mousethief in response to HughWillRidmee:
quote:, but no attempt to offer what they are instead. Which suggests to me that the first bullet point is simply something to hide behind.
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
quote:The first two responses seem very reasonable to me. I wouldn't use the third response, and in fact I never have. And once again, instead of saying something about what Christians belief, you could ask us. I can assure you there are plenty of Christians of the Ship who would be more than willing to answer.
Pre-cambrian: And then, if we atheists do say something about Christian beliefs (and remember many of us once were Christians, so you can't pretend we are as ignorant as you would like. And, Mousethief, I was a liberal Anglican, so I don't fit into your stereotypical backstory of the apostate.) we are told:
- I don't believe that
- Christians are very diverse and you can't say "Christians believe..."
- Only an ignorant atheist (see above) would try to typecast us like that
- etc etc
quote:It is something of a pet peeve of mine that many people on the Ship who invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy don't really understand what this fallacy means. This seems to be one of these cases.
Pre-cambrian: And finally, just because the Christian belief cited isn't what you personally believe, that doesn't make it a straw man. It may actually mean that it is you trying the No True Scotsman/Christian get out.
quote:I'd be more than happy to debate my faith with an atheist who'd agree to abide with Stendahl's three rules. In fact I'd be thrilled by this, because I think I could learn a lot from such a discussion. And I'd readily promise to follow these rules too.
Pre-cambrian: Even less diplomatically, do I think you debate in good faith? The jury's out (and that is being diplomatic.).
quote:If you were reading the thread for content and not for things to pick fights with you might have noticed that I do come back and tell what the basics of my beliefs are. But don't let me stop a good rant.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Case in point on this thread with Mousethief in response to HughWillRidmee:
quote:, but no attempt to offer what they are instead. Which suggests to me that the first bullet point is simply something to hide behind.
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
quote:Until one shows up who is so willing, I suggest you continue to respirate.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'd be more than happy to debate my faith with an atheist who'd agree to abide with Stendahl's three rules. In fact I'd be thrilled by this, because I think I could learn a lot from such a discussion. And I'd readily promise to follow these rules too.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Until one shows up who is so willing, I suggest you continue to respirate.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:But scientific materialism seems to be only interested in the physical sciences with no interest in the rest. A poor philosophy.
A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
quote:Right. Ladies and gentleman, on your right we have Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and the maths and physical evidence to support it. Please feel free to look through the repeatable experiments and try one yourself.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Theology too is a science:
quote:But scientific materialism seems to be only interested in the physical sciences with no interest in the rest. A poor philosophy.
A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
quote:Theology can be subject to empirical verification in some bits, but it is bigger than empiricism because it extends beyond the physical and natural worlds.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Right. Ladies and gentleman, on your right we have Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and the maths and physical evidence to support it. Please feel free to look through the repeatable experiments and try one yourself.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Theology too is a science:
quote:But scientific materialism seems to be only interested in the physical sciences with no interest in the rest. A poor philosophy.
A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
On your left, we have Religion with various, contradictory books and, erm, well....
So I suppose there is science and there is science.
quote:And he hints at the limitations of pure empiricism:
Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
quote:
Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.
quote:Science most certainly is philosophy. It is grounded in philosophy: e.g. a priori judgements.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, and science is not philosophy.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by RooK:
The only things "science" should be used to describe are things to which the scientific method is fundamentally applied.
quote:
How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there not some more valuable work to be done in his specialty? That's what I hear many of my colleagues ask, and I sense it from many more. But I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching — that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not just their quick-wittedness — I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through tenacious defense of their views, that the subject seemed important to them.
quote:The validity of Quantum Mechanics has been proven experimentally. That thing you are typing on right now wouldn't work without it.
Evensong: By empiricism alone, mathematical proofs and quantum theories would not count as science because they are abstractions derived from deductive reasoning.
quote:In some cases it decided it could get rid of ethics as well.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, and science is not philosophy. One of its great breakthroughs was to rid itself of philosophical speculation about reality and truth. It then became empirical and useful.
quote:I'm not full bottle on quantum physics at all so forgive me if I get this wrong but I don't think string theory or this theory or that theory of another six dimensions or parallel worlds has been proven experimentally. Certainly not proven through the senses (empiricism ). They are abstractions from deductive reasoning. Much like the existence of God based on philosophical reasoning.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The validity of Quantum Mechanics has been proven experimentally. .
Evensong: By empiricism alone, mathematical proofs and quantum theories would not count as science because they are abstractions derived from deductive reasoning.
quote:Your conflating two things here: basic Quantum Mechanics, and some of the more advanced potential theories. The latter haven't been proven, nobody claims they have been. They don't have the status of scientific theories; they're potential theories at most.
Evensong: I'm not full bottle on quantum physics at all so forgive me if I get this wrong but I don't think string theory or this theory or that theory of another six dimensions or parallel worlds has been proven experimentally.
quote:It depends what you mean by Empirical, for instance does the stuff this journal publishes science!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One reason that theology is not considered scientific is that it is not empirical. This means that it has fewer constraints that an empirical science does. Of course, it was once known as the queen of the sciences, but I think 'science' was being used differently then, more like 'scientiae', which meant knowledge. Hence Bacon said, 'ipsa scientia potestas est', or knowledge is power.
For that matter, mathematics is not scientific.
quote:Yes, good point. I think some aspects of the study of religion are empirical, for example, sociological and psychological studies. I was really saying that the study of God is not empirical. But I think you are right, and many theology degrees now are very practically oriented.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:It depends what you mean by Empirical, for instance does the stuff this journal publishes science!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One reason that theology is not considered scientific is that it is not empirical. This means that it has fewer constraints that an empirical science does. Of course, it was once known as the queen of the sciences, but I think 'science' was being used differently then, more like 'scientiae', which meant knowledge. Hence Bacon said, 'ipsa scientia potestas est', or knowledge is power.
For that matter, mathematics is not scientific.
The problem is that Empirical means a variety of things in different sciences and it means an even wider range of things when you get to the social sciences. There are definitely some forms of Empricism that can be used within Theology particularly at the "practical", "contextual" end of the range.
Jengie
quote:Sure. But it does make the advanced potential theories unscientific. But I doubt people see it that way. Quantum theory armchair enthusiasts certainly think they're being scientific.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Your conflating two things here: basic Quantum Mechanics, and some of the more advanced potential theories. The latter haven't been proven, nobody claims they have been. They don't have the status of scientific theories; they're potential theories at most.
Evensong: I'm not full bottle on quantum physics at all so forgive me if I get this wrong but I don't think string theory or this theory or that theory of another six dimensions or parallel worlds has been proven experimentally.
But basic Quantum Mechanics has been proven thoroughly. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to dismiss Quantum Mechanics as unscientific.
quote:Find a decent bookshop or library and get hold of Richard Feynman's "Quantum ElectroDynamics". It describes the basis of QM in a way even I can understand (so long as I'm reading the book at the time: I admit some of it is counter-intuitive).
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Sure. But it does make the advanced potential theories unscientific. But I doubt people see it that way. Quantum theory armchair enthusiasts certainly think they're being scientific.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Your conflating two things here: basic Quantum Mechanics, and some of the more advanced potential theories. The latter haven't been proven, nobody claims they have been. They don't have the status of scientific theories; they're potential theories at most.
Evensong: I'm not full bottle on quantum physics at all so forgive me if I get this wrong but I don't think string theory or this theory or that theory of another six dimensions or parallel worlds has been proven experimentally.
But basic Quantum Mechanics has been proven thoroughly. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to dismiss Quantum Mechanics as unscientific.
quote:Alan may correct me if I'm wrong, but my perception is that scientists don't see things like string theory as scientific yet. Because they haven't been empirically proven. What the media or the public thinks about it may be a different matter though.
Evensong: Sure. But it does make the advanced potential theories unscientific. But I doubt people see it that way. Quantum theory armchair enthusiasts certainly think they're being scientific.
quote:Empiricism does.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It depends what you mean by scientific. It sounds like it's being used as "believed to be true, scientifically". But the problem is that scientific models and theories don't really work that way.
quote:Not so according to the Wikipedia article RooK posted:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
String theory is scientific, in that it's a scientific theory that follows a scientific method.
quote:By that definition String theory is not scientific.
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]
quote:I'm off to a party where I'll drink beer and play some samba on my guitar. I'll willingly, happily disregard understanding right now. I wish you good luck.
Evensong: Semantics are the basis of communication. If you disregard semantics, you disregard understanding.
quote:Sure. Except that it's status as a theory depends on its compliance with other empirical evidence, and it would be extremely useful for our sum of knowledge to find a way to empirically test it directly.
Originally posted by Evensong:
By that definition String theory is not scientific.
quote:String theory is not a method of inquiry.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:By that definition String theory is not scientific.
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]
quote:Er, in which which post in this thread did you expound the basics of your beliefs? Because I can't see anywhere you got anywhere close, or even tried. Making things up doesn't make them true.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If you were reading the thread for content and not for things to pick fights with you might have noticed that I do come back and tell what the basics of my beliefs are. But don't let me stop a good rant.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Case in point on this thread with Mousethief in response to HughWillRidmee:
quote:, but no attempt to offer what they are instead. Which suggests to me that the first bullet point is simply something to hide behind.
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
I'm amazed you think there's something wrong with somebody saying "that's not what I believe" when someone else has cast them as believing something they don't actually believe. It's as if you think you really DO have a right to tell me what I believe. Which is just astounding.
quote:The same principles could be applied to areas like theology (the study of God) or philosophy. Ergo I don't see why we can't call theology a science.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:String theory is not a method of inquiry.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:By that definition String theory is not scientific.
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]
Moreover, the sciences are a body of techniques that all operate together. You want to have some empirical support at some point in the process, but just because you haven't got empirical support yet doesn't mean you're not being scientific yet.
Principia Mathematica, by Isaac Newton, contains no references to any specific empirical evidence as far as I can tell. It would be a brave person who claimed that Principia Mathematica wasn't scientific.
quote:I think theology historically has been extremely useful for building knowledge. (By knowledge I assume you mean knowledge of the natural world here.)
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:Sure. Except that it's status as a theory depends on its compliance with other empirical evidence, and it would be extremely useful for our sum of knowledge to find a way to empirically test it directly.
Originally posted by Evensong:
By that definition String theory is not scientific.
Unlike theology, in which empirical evidence is both unnecessary (or just plain ignored) and essentially useless for building knowledge. But it has other uses.
As soon as you try to pit spirituality versus knowledge, both lose. Which is sort of like the entirety of your brain.
quote:String theory is not replicable as yet ( just like the existence of God is not replicable as yet). So by your definition string theory or pure maths is not science. See above on rationalism and empiricism as competing philosophies.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What observations of God are universally agreed and interpreted the same way repeatedly to start using as a basis of a theory? The whole point of scientific observations that they are replicable.
quote:The study of nature was earlier deemed to be a study of God's glorious creation. It is now proceeding in a similar bent, just without the God factor. Efficient cause becomes the end rather than the formal cause.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
God is also usually reckoned to be supernatural. So people are proposing to use various methods from the study of nature, for the study of the supernatural? I am also curious how observations will be made, repeated, falsified, predicted, and so on.
quote:I think this is all kiddology. If you really think that theology (as the study of God) is a science, then show me some links, where scientific observations are made about God. Here, for comparison, is a popular article in astronomy about observations made about quasar accretion discs:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:String theory is not replicable as yet ( just like the existence of God is not replicable as yet). So by your definition string theory or pure maths is not science. See above on rationalism and empiricism as competing philosophies.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What observations of God are universally agreed and interpreted the same way repeatedly to start using as a basis of a theory? The whole point of scientific observations that they are replicable.
quote:The study of nature was earlier deemed to be a study of God's glorious creation. It is now proceeding in a similar bent, just without the God factor. Efficient cause becomes the end rather than the formal cause.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
God is also usually reckoned to be supernatural. So people are proposing to use various methods from the study of nature, for the study of the supernatural? I am also curious how observations will be made, repeated, falsified, predicted, and so on.
But no you can't study the supernatural purely from the natural because the supernatural is beyond the natural as well as in it. So you can see in part but not in full if you study the world. That's the definition of panentheism (which is a fairly orthodox Christian position).
quote:This! Mother fucking this.
Originally posted by RooK:
As soon as you try to pit spirituality versus knowledge, both lose. Which is sort of like the entirety of your brain.
quote:I don't think this is true. It's just that the sort of empirical evidence that is relevant involves the whole of your life, and is impossible to digest without so much interpretation that it's immensely immensely tricky to get any clear consensus on what the empirical evidence supports.
Originally posted by RooK:
Unlike theology, in which empirical evidence is both unnecessary (or just plain ignored) and essentially useless for building knowledge. But it has other uses.
quote:I see that you're using the Classical Schoolyard Defence™: "But Miss, the other ones are doing it too!" Like I said, I would adhere to Stendhal's rules in a discussion with an atheist.
Pre-cambrian:Krister Stendhal's principles are all fine and dandy, except they don't seem to work both ways. I.e. Christians seem perfectly happy to define what an atheist is but get really upset if it works the other way.
quote:It doesn't matter if you use a generic 'you' or a specific 'you'. Don't tell others what they believe.
Pre-cambrian: Also there seems to be a deliberate failure to recognise the pretty simple fact that in English "you" can mean either singular or plural collective. Atheists are not talking about what individual Christians believe. So when we talk about "you" we are talking about christianity not you personally. I would have thought that was obvious.
quote:No you don't. Not by a long shot.
Pre-cambrian: Thanks for your arrogance, but I do understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy means.
quote:They're just basic human decency. "Don't tell others what they believe, ask them" is a good standard in any discussion, between atheists or Christians, people of different beliefs, people of different political opinions ...
Pre-cambrian: Finally you say you'd be happy to debate your faith with an atheist who'd obey a series of Christian imposed parameters.
quote:You're repeating yourself. The Classic Schoolyard Defence again. I would abide with Stendhal's rules.
Pre-cambrian: (By the way have you noticed the way on these boards that the theists can be adamant what atheism is, so fuck the first of Stendhal's rules.)
quote:I always debate in good faith (whatever that means).
Pre-cambrian: But my question was whether you would debate in good faith?
quote:Thank you – exactly my thoughts but so much better put.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
........
Trying to debate with Christians is like trying to grapple with a jelly. Or to put it less diplomatically it looks as if whatever we say your response (collectively, not you personally, LeRoc) will be simply to contradict, even if it contradicts what you previously said, let alone what you would say to other Christians.
Even less diplomatically, do I think you debate in good faith? The jury's out (and that is being diplomatic.).
quote:Perhaps Pre-cambrian noticed that I asked you to explain what your jargon meant to you. Since there was no worthwhile reply I tried to prise out some info. So, tell me which bit(s) of God, Heaven, Soul, Prayer, Sin (Original and non-original), Redemption are not part of your religion and we can make a start of sorts.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you were reading the thread for content and not for things to pick fights with you might have noticed that I do come back and tell what the basics of my beliefs are. But don't let me stop a good rant.
quote:It would, would it not, be equally valid to suggest that religion is trying to broaden a viewpoint that doesn’t need broadening? It’s called creating a need.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Faith in scientific materialism of the brand Hugh seems to subscribe to is not compatible with faith in God. It is too narrow a viewpoint.
quote:Absolutely. Where science can’t be used we enter the realm of opinion where we are able to request information and, if we can get any, discuss possibilities in the knowledge that they are, at best, potential scenarios.
Originally posted by RooK:
The only things "science" should be used to describe are things to which the scientific method is fundamentally applied.
quote:Only if there is something beyond the physical and natural worlds. If so it is, ISTM inevitably, beyond our understanding – if not, indeed either way, then the conviction is a drag on getting on with sorting out what we are pretty sure does exist. You choose to think there is something – I, because of the lack of what I see as evidence in its favour and the lack of need for it, am unable to do so. My stance, as I see it, has the advantage of not needing complex and contradictory thought constructions to try to make sense of something fundamentally without substance. (in other words - like me it's simple).
Originally posted by Evensong:
Theology can be subject to empirical verification in some bits, but it is bigger than empiricism because it extends beyond the physical and natural worlds.
quote:Same with theology or philosophy.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I would say that string theory so far is a scientific speculation for which scientists are working with to develop hypotheses that can be tested (or testable though we may not have the tools yet to do the testing). It may go the way of ether or it might not.
quote:If you asked the man or woman on the street whether mathematics was a science, I reckon 99% would say yes.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Mathematics is a tool not a science but a very useful tool.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Now is theology (or some parts of theology) like mathematics in that it takes a set of axioms and tries to derive some conclusions?
quote:Axioms will vary depending on the school of thought. In my denomination, scripture, tradition, reason/experience are the basic axioms through which conclusions are derived. In empiricism, the senses are technically those axioms. A rationalist would say the axioms of empiricism are unrealistic. An empiricist would describe scripture as an unrealistic axiom perhaps etc. etc.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
In which case at least three possible criticism might be made (1) that some of the axioms are unrealistic
quote:When clinical experiments are conducted ( say studies on causes of heart disease) are contradictory, the system (medicine) is not considered to be flawed, the evidence or the initial question that framed the experiments are considered flawed or incomplete. Same can be said for theology.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
(2) that some of the conclusions are contradictory and so the system is flawed
quote:Armchair theology might be more like art (eisegesis), but academic theology is a discipline where you have to reason and prove your point with evidence just like any other discipline. My theology degree was not simply an easy flight of fancy speculating about my faith. It was bloody hard, nit picking, carefully reasoned and researched work.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Or is theology (or some parts of theology) like art?
quote:Sure.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
think this is all kiddology. If you really think that theology (as the study of God) is a science, then show me some links, where scientific observations are made about God.
quote:Yes. Quite right. We begin from different axioms.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:Only if there is something beyond the physical and natural worlds. If so it is, ISTM inevitably, beyond our understanding – if not, indeed either way, then the conviction is a drag on getting on with sorting out what we are pretty sure does exist. You choose to think there is something – I, because of the lack of what I see as evidence in its favour and the lack of need for it, am unable to do so. My stance, as I see it, has the advantage of not needing complex and contradictory thought constructions to try to make sense of something fundamentally without substance. (in other words - like me it's simple).
Originally posted by Evensong:
Theology can be subject to empirical verification in some bits, but it is bigger than empiricism because it extends beyond the physical and natural worlds.
quote:If people's opinions in any way affected fundamental reality, that would matter. But it doesn't.
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you asked the man or woman on the street whether mathematics was a science, I reckon 99% would say yes.
quote:The scientific method is a human construct, not "fundamental reality".
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:If people's opinions in any way affected fundamental reality, that would matter. But it doesn't.
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you asked the man or woman on the street whether mathematics was a science, I reckon 99% would say yes.
quote:I thought we were discussing what "science" means according to most people.
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:If people's opinions in any way affected fundamental reality, that would matter. But it doesn't.
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you asked the man or woman on the street whether mathematics was a science, I reckon 99% would say yes.
quote:Tricky. It's not unusual for people to be experts in their own field and spectacularly useless everywhere else. Maybe he hasn't a clue about an 'art' or a deep and abiding hatred of the dean of the science faculty.
Originally posted by Wood:
I knew a Maths professor who swore blind that Maths was in fact an art, but he was also a colossal gaping asshole, so I don't know how seriously to take his opinion.
quote:Really? That's what that thread is about? Because to the casual observer, it would probably look like some posters carefully explaining to (mainly) you why scientism (or STEM supremacy as Wood is wont to call it) is a problem - viz, it takes a method that is self-limiting from the get go and attempts to apply it to everything in a self-contradictory manner - and you - deliberately or otherwise - misconstruing that fairly straightforward point.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This! Mother fucking this.
Originally posted by RooK:
As soon as you try to pit spirituality versus knowledge, both lose. Which is sort of like the entirety of your brain.
This is what is at the root of the annoyance which caused my OP in Purg.
Equating religion with science is Jesus riding a dinosaur. Not only is it wrong, it misses the point entirely.
quote:Out of interest: do you feel that debating with Christians is more difficult on the Ship than anywhere else?
HughWillRidmee: Thank you – exactly my thoughts but so much better put.
quote:I never said I expounded them. I said I told them. Is English your first language? Or are you just twisting my words on purpose so you can come back and say "you weren't expounding there"?
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Er, in which which post in this thread did you expound the basics of your beliefs? Because I can't see anywhere you got anywhere close, or even tried. Making things up doesn't make them true.
quote:I'm more than happy to let Atheists define what Atheism is. I just wish the definition would settle down and quit changing so.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Christians seem perfectly happy to define what an atheist is but get really upset if it works the other way.
quote:Guess you thought wrong then, huh? "I would have thought that was obvious" is the perennial cry of the person whose words were unclear or misleading.
Also there seems to be a deliberate failure to recognise the pretty simple fact that in English "you" can mean either singular or plural collective. Atheists are not talking about what individual Christians believe. So when we talk about "you" we are talking about christianity not you personally. I would have thought that was obvious.
quote:Perhaps this explains the otherwise dishonest-seeming change of verb. Nah, not really. I said I did something that I did, and he twisted it to try to make it look like I said something I didn't. And then has the mendacity to accuse someone else of arguing in bad faith. You atheists aren't really coming across well on this thread. This must be the asshole squad from the atheist rearguard.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Perhaps Pre-cambrian noticed that I asked you to explain what your jargon meant to you.
quote:I'm not sure what you're asking. Of course they're part of my religion. You asked me for my religion and I told you my religion and now you want to know which aren't my religion. What gives?
So, tell me which bit(s) of God, Heaven, Soul, Prayer, Sin (Original and non-original), Redemption are not part of your religion and we can make a start of sorts.
quote:As a social scientist, I think this is one of the most succinct descriptions of them I've seen for awhile. But they are not real sciences. I've just been writing on this actually. Most of what the social sciences seek to investigate would probably be better done using phenomenology and hermeneutics.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I thought I just did.
It depends on what you think a "Christian" principle is, though.
As far as I'm concerned, if the social sciences count as sciences in all their wishy-washy wooliness, I don't see why theology is so beyond the pale.
quote:I'm not sure if it is a problem, but you're right that there is a semantic difference here. The same thing happens in Dutch. The word wetenschap usually covers a bigger area than the English word 'Science'. It depends a bit on context, but if I want to translate the word 'Science', I normally use the term exacte wetenschap.
Elephenor: I read that our modern restrictive (and singular) usage of 'Science' is a peculiarly Anglophone problem, and that (French) sciences, (German) wissenschaften or (Italian) scienze could still cover the entire lecture of a modern university
quote:I read an article recently that argued that if you look at Kuhn's paradigm shifts model, they're not sciences (yet?) because they have no central paradigm. There are "schools" but there isn't any agreement on how to go about "doing" sociology or historiography or whatever. You can't overthrow the paradigm because there isn't one. They are pre-sciences at best.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:As a social scientist, I think this is one of the most succinct descriptions of them I've seen for awhile. But they are not real sciences. I've just been writing on this actually. Most of what the social sciences seek to investigate would probably be better done using phenomenology and hermeneutics.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I thought I just did.
It depends on what you think a "Christian" principle is, though.
As far as I'm concerned, if the social sciences count as sciences in all their wishy-washy wooliness, I don't see why theology is so beyond the pale.
quote:If I can find it. It was part of my classwork about a year ago, I think, and I'm not sure if I read it online or downloaded a copy.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Oooh, can you send me the link? Sounds very interesting. PM is fine, whatever.
quote:is the basis of your argument.
Sort of like "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you, cause I'm right and you're wrong, not listening, not listening!"
quote:This is basically what you've done that whole thread.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What a delusional, egotistical, pencil-dicked moron you are.
This
quote:is the basis of your argument.
Sort of like "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you, cause I'm right and you're wrong, not listening, not listening!"
quote:The goal is to hear people's objections to Scientism, and then turn them towards religion. I guess you can get some kind of kick out of that. It isn't helped by the fact that lilBuddha doesn't really understand what Scientism means, and therefore doesn't get some of the basic arguments that are made on the thread.
orfeo: Lilbuddha, if you're going to start a thread asking "why do people have problems with scientism", and then spend the entire thread giving the impression that your goal is to invalidate every objection that people have, it's hardly surprising that you get blowback.
quote:To be fair, Evensong has also been posting on the thread, and I'm not convinced Evensong's understanding of the difference between scientism and materialism is any better than LilBuddha's.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It isn't helped by the fact that lilBuddha doesn't really understand what Scientism means, and therefore doesn't get some of the basic arguments that are made on the thread.
quote:Thankyou! Because it's also pretty fascist - as soon as there is no irrational basis for decisions, everything is in the domain of the experts. The experts would determine whether you take medicine or not, what time you get up for your best health, what nutrients you take and how you take them, who your best partner is, etc etc etc. It's all rationally arguable, and if there is only a rational scientific basis, someone somewhere can be wheeled out as THE expert in it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
And that's really what it's about. A determination to control everything. Scientism is fundamentally about a refusal to just let things HAPPEN.
You want to see where that leads, go and watch Gattaca.
quote:I understand the arguments, I simply do not agree that they are correct.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It isn't helped by the fact that lilBuddha doesn't really understand what Scientism means, and therefore doesn't get some of the basic arguments that are made on the thread.
quote:Alright, I owe Allen and likely some others an apology. Allen gave his reasons for particularly having a problem with scientism, and I did not properly acknowledge this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Lilbuddha, if you're going to start a thread asking "why do people have problems with scientism", and then spend the entire thread giving the impression that your goal is to invalidate every objection that people have, it's hardly surprising that you get blowback.
quote:You think you do but you don't. And you're not the only one. The thread is rather fascinating, in what this does to communication.
lilBuddha: I understand the arguments, I simply do not agree that they are correct.
quote:There's not agreeing and not wanting to agree. That is as simple as lilBuddha suggests.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:You think you do but you don't. And you're not the only one. The thread is rather fascinating, in what this does to communication.
lilBuddha: I understand the arguments, I simply do not agree that they are correct.
quote:Now I'm the one who doesn't understand you.
Sioni Sais: There's not agreeing and not wanting to agree. That is as simple as lilBuddha suggests.
quote:This is bullshit. As Rook indicated a few posts before yours.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was not attempting to invalidate every objection, regardless of what it is. The objections to scientism presented are at least as faith based as scientism is itself.
That there must be this nebulous more, these unknowable processes that govern the universe.
The arguments presented need this presupposition to exist.
quote:To make an (American) football analogy, science is the quarterback, scientism is defensive line (ie, too slow and unreliable to play backfield, to stupid to play offense).
Originally posted by mousethief:
The scientismist has a built-in kneejerk reaction to anybody who questions scientism: "You're reacting out of emotion and faith!"
I don't think you can pin that particular complaint on RooK, and there are plenty of other people on the thread who really aren't. Scientism has serious logical, philosophical, and epistemological problems.
It brings no honor to science to treat it as a religion, or make claims for it that cannot be defended without resort to name-calling. Science is a big girl. She can stand up on her own two feet without the muddle-headed cheering squad.
quote:Yep. This makes it clear, again, that LeRoc is right - lb doesn't understand the arguments being made.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:This is bullshit. As Rook indicated a few posts before yours.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was not attempting to invalidate every objection, regardless of what it is. The objections to scientism presented are at least as faith based as scientism is itself.
That there must be this nebulous more, these unknowable processes that govern the universe.
The arguments presented need this presupposition to exist.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Let us look.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:This is bullshit. As Rook indicated a few posts before yours.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was not attempting to invalidate every objection, regardless of what it is. The objections to scientism presented are at least as faith based as scientism is itself.
That there must be this nebulous more, these unknowable processes that govern the universe.
The arguments presented need this presupposition to exist.
quote:I don't disagree, I don't think I've stated differently.
Originally posted by RooK:
You don't have to turn to religion to reject scientism.
quote:I agree, but would add at least currently. If we are speaking in possibilities. If we shift to probabilities, different answer.
Originally posted by RooK:
Science is a tool, like a hammer. Very effective for certain things, but painfully useless at others.
quote:But one does need to believe that it will always remain so to reject scientism as completely and forever untenable.
Originally posted by RooK:
You don't need to have faith in the unprovable to see that.
quote:The same statement works for any faith position. And, ISTM, that is the problem with much of this discussion.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The scientismist has a built-in kneejerk reaction to anybody who questions scientism: "You're reacting out of emotion and faith!"
quote:Quite, we cannot know what we will possibly be able to know.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't think you can pin that particular complaint on RooK, and there are plenty of other people on the thread who really aren't. Scientism has serious logical,
quote:There are no philosophies that are unproblematic.
Originally posted by mousethief:
philosophical,
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It brings no honor to science to treat it as a religion, or make claims for it that cannot be defended without resort to name-calling. Science is a big girl. She can stand up on her own two feet without the muddle-headed cheering squad.
quote:Where? The SOF has precious few anti-science types (at the mo). I don't think any have argued on this thread or the related Purg thread, have they? Can you provide us with a link?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On this site the word, and its anti-science permutation, has been used as epithet and trump.
quote:Well, if we're both still alive in another 10 centuries let's compare notes and see how we're progressing, shall we? Assuming Jesus doesn't come back first.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I agree, but would add at least currently. If we are speaking in possibilities. If we shift to probabilities, different answer.
quote:This is the exchange which prompted my OP. Granted, in itself it is not strictly anti-science. I think, in this case, it was more the putting science in the same category as religion which brought me to a halt. And then the mention of the word scientism brought me to the OP in Purg. The OP had been an ongoing thought, prompted by various incidents. Or my impression of this. I wish I could more easily point to more, but I don't catalogue things this way.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Where? The SOF has precious few anti-science types (at the mo). I don't think any have argued on this thread or the related Purg thread, have they? Can you provide us with a link?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On this site the word, and its anti-science permutation, has been used as epithet and trump.
quote:Except no. The faith that one day science will be able to discover everything is a misplaced faith, because - once again - science is not a tool that can be used to understand some things. If you cannot get past that fundamental category error, you will never understand this. Given time, yes, what can be investigated empirically and verified scientifically probably will be. Some things cannot be.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:I agree, but would add at least currently. If we are speaking in possibilities. If we shift to probabilities, different answer.
Originally posted by RooK:
Science is a tool, like a hammer. Very effective for certain things, but painfully useless at others.
quote:No, all one really needs is a grasp of the fact that science is useful for investigating and understanding some things, but not everything. That isn't faith, it's logic.
quote:But one does need to believe that it will always remain so to reject scientism as completely and forever untenable.
You don't need to have faith in the unprovable to see that.
quote:You appear to be high. A sober look at probabilities suggests that our global society is going to smother/starve itself into extinction before it figures out to stop watching so much kittehs/pron. The probability of actual scientists ever finding a falsifiable theory to test "why RooK prefers the colour orange over green" is plain old infinitesimal. Negligible even. Just like scientism itself.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I agree, but would add at least currently. If we are speaking in possibilities. If we shift to probabilities, different answer.
Science is a tool, like a hammer. Very effective for certain things, but painfully useless at others.
quote:So why exactly did it get you so hot under the collar?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is the exchange which prompted my OP. Granted, in itself it is not strictly anti-science.
quote:Wow. Just, wow.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is the exchange which prompted my OP. Granted, in itself it is not strictly anti-science. I think, in this case, it was more the putting science in the same category as religion which brought me to a halt. And then the mention of the word scientism brought me to the OP in Purg. The OP had been an ongoing thought, prompted by various incidents. Or my impression of this. I wish I could more easily point to more, but I don't catalogue things this way.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Where? The SOF has precious few anti-science types (at the mo). I don't think any have argued on this thread or the related Purg thread, have they? Can you provide us with a link?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On this site the word, and its anti-science permutation, has been used as epithet and trump.
quote:In that post I was criticising the concept that theology is a science. That reply was not about scientism. And, the context is a few posts above, easily referenced by a reader of the thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, a few posts below that, you cut out the bit that WASN'T about the word 'scientism', divorced it from its context and criticised it.
quote:I did not reference Evensong's post because it is not the the main cause of the Purg OP. And truly, as I said to mousethief, the word triggered the the OP, not the post itself. My impression of its use over time on this site was the fuel.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You then went and created a whole Purgatory thread about the 'scientism' part, again divorcing it from its context - which was to comment on the difference between "science vs faith" and "scientism vs faith".
quote:If you can point to a statement that I made saying you think the alternative to scientism is religion, please point it out and I will retract and apologise. It was not my intention. I have said, more than once, that I am not a scientism-ist. And that I am not advocating that anyone should be.
Originally posted by orfeo:
This has been said to you over and over and over again, in 50 different ways. I can't even remember which day of a week I made a reference to fundamentalism, for example.
But you keep coming back with this bloody stupid retort about how we think the alternative to scientism is religion. As if there's no middle ground where people just get on with the business of living without having to have one single Answer to the entire universe before they're able to pour milk on their cereal.
quote:Groxes or whatever his name is continues his disingenuous and fallacious interactions. Mark another one down as too dumb to understand what's going on.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And neither does this this tool.
quote:It's been delightful to have such pains in the asses as you, RooK and IngoB arguing with me for a change.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong's right. .
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:That's a new one for me.
Socratic-enigma: 3. In science, the validity of any theory is determined by its applicability
quote:well - that's quite an idealised position. In fact, there are many things in science that are sacred - to at least some scientists. Excluded middles, Ockham being sacred prioris. Sacred methods include the double blind placebo trial -
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Just to return to Evensong's original contention, let's be clear -
Theology is not a science.
1. In science, nothing is sacred
Phlogiston, Aristotle's Law of Falling Bodies, have gone the way of the Dodo. Even Newton's mechanics, which were the closest thing in science to Holy Writ, have been superceded by Relativity.
2. Science is universal
The Periodic Table is the same whether you're in Beijing, Timbuktu or Upper Kumbucta West. The basic principles of Physics and Chemistry are accepted everywhere because of their utility.
3. In science, the validity of any theory is determined by its applicability
Relativity was able to explain and predict celestial motions which Newtonian Mechanics could not account for.
What the term 'science' may have meant is irrelevant; we are only concerned with what it means now. The principles I have listed are pertinent to our current understanding - and none of them apply to Theology.
S-E
(a proud member of the asshole squad from the atheist rearguard)
