|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dawkins is a Fool. God says so!
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
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)
Dawkins's tweet is outrageous because it is pure ableism.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
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.
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
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.
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.
I would never say otherwise.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
"Man," said the Ghost [of Christmas Present], "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant [of 'decrease the surplus population'] until you have discovered what the surplus is, and where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. O God! to hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!" (Stave Three)
Different context (economical rather than eugenics) - but same principle. Of course, there is no 'sight of heaven' in the philosophy of Dawkins - only the 'sight of Dawkins'. But humility isn't just for believers in a deity.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
What he's done is so stupid it's almost clever. As I've said on the ship before, the argument about abortion comes down to the tension between two basically good things - a) the right of the mother to autonomy over her body and her future, and b) the rights/status/value of the developing foetus. How important you think each of these things are, together and separately, will tend to place you somewhere on the spectrum of argument, but when people argue about abortion this is usually what they're arguing about.
What Dawkins has done here is to take both of these basically good things, and shit on both of them in one tweet. "Ha ha! This foetus has no value! And who cares what the mother wants either?" He's basically gone for the stand that neither side can support.
The trouble is that that's a stand that tends to ignite both sides against the other, even though neither side agrees with it, because in the abortion debate both sides tend to see their position as "I love (a) and my opponent hates (a)" or "I love (b) and my opponent hates (b)" rather than the reality which is more like "I think (a) is more important, and my opponent thinks it matters to some extent but (b) really matters more" (or vice versa - whatever).
So I've seen a lot of kneejerk reactions along the lines of OMG PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE HATE BABIES AND WANT TO KILL EVERYONE WHO ISN'T PERFECT because pro-lifers see their opponents arguments in terms of negating what the pro-lifers think is important rather than supporting what the pro-choicers think is important. If any of you think that what Dawkins has said here supports a pro-choice position, this is what you're doing.
Eta: there are a few people out there who really do hate (a) or (b). They're dicks who don't help anything and are best ignored.
[ 26. August 2014, 10:39: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know, one can really ruin a convincing argument by driving it into hyperbole.
Oh, I don't know....there's not that far to travel from Dawkins' particular brand of eugenics to the 'extermination of unfit life'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know, one can really ruin a convincing argument by driving it into hyperbole.
Oh, I don't know....there's not that far to travel from Dawkins' particular brand of eugenics to the 'extermination of unfit life'.
Indeed - the issue is also 'who decides?'
The huge implication that Dawkins offers is that it's logical, science-based opinion that should decide.
In other words, we don't want deity, we don't want humanity, we want logic.
What a frightening prospect.
And how scary to know that there are people even today who believe this, promote it, and are shameless about it.
God alone knows what would happen if Dawkins or someone like him was given the power to influence actually policy and practice!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
In other words, we don't want deity, we don't want humanity, we want logic.
Don't you mean "the logic of a certain view of reality (which is itself illogical)"?
Nowt wrong with logic, per se.
For example, the Samaritan in the parable was extremely logical, in that he deduced that it would actually be in the injured bloke's interests to get him to a place of safety, comfort and healing. That is compassion. It is also basic intelligence based on logic.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
The huge implication that Dawkins offers is that it's logical, science-based opinion that should decide.
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.
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.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Dawkins is a consequentialist and, therefore, would claim that his understanding of morality was rational.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
It is outrageous, surely, because it denies people their humanity based solely on physical / genetic characteristics. Who next?
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.
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.
What makes you think that poverty, sexism, racism, and so on and so forth, involve anything other than denying people their full humanity?
In my opinion, the conversation becomes less than useful if we get too bogged down in worrying about the impact of Dawkins' sentiments on individual areas of concern, and thereby lose sight of the full horror of what he is suggesting.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
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'.
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...
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
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'.
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...
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).
At any rate, in this sort of scheme, morality is not derived from reason. I would not call it 'irrational'; I suppose 'non-rational' covers it, but people are using 'arational' today, and some people call Hume 'anti-rationalist'!
But of course, there are many different kinds of moral viewpoints among atheists (I am not an atheist by the way; I just know a lot!).
I'm not sure why this is mystical?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Figbash, I think we are combining the general discussion with the specific discussion of one person's decision. In my view we have to talk about all the "isms" to address the general contextual problems that underlie the needs and wants of the individual, and to deal with this at the level of systems. None of these "isms" are relevant and should not be discussed with the individual making the decision about a pregnancy.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
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...
sigh
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Of course they're genetic: respect your elders - because one day you'll be old, don't mess around - the offspring won't get a good start.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was saying that the philosopher David Hume argues that morality is not rational; and some atheists (but not all) go along with that. In crude terms, Hume sees morality as to do with approval and disapproval, which are feelings, and hence, not rational. I think Hume would call them 'passions'.
However, as it turns out, Dawkins himself is not of that persuasion, so it was a flight of the bumble bee which went splat.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Are you saying that your morality is objective or subjective? It's not clear from the above comment.
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)?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
how we relate to the objective world
Subjectively.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Exactly: there's no other way.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Subjectively.
So one person thinks it is right to kill an unborn child and another thinks that it is wrong.
And they are both 'right', because both positions are expressions of their respective subjective morality, yes?
[ 27. August 2014, 11:54: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And they are both 'right'
According to whom?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
According to the idea of subjective morality.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Ideas don't make judgements, people do. So I'll ask again, according to whom?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
According to those who believe in the idea of subjective morality.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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'.
[ 27. August 2014, 12:20: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Mudfrog -
Don't you mean "scientism applied by logic"?
Don't blame a perfectly good tool. Logic is only as good as the assumptions to which it is applied.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
According to those who believe in the idea of subjective morality.
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!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Who then decides?
In cases where a decision has to be made in order for society to function, democratic consensus. In all other cases, the individual.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Can I take it, therefore, that those who believe in subjective morality respect the validity of each other's moral positions?
If yes, then my original point stands.
If no, then whoever does not respect the validity of other positions clearly does not believe that morality is subjective.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
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'.
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.
Thus, one reason that you can't get an ought from an is, is that the ought contains implicit feelings.
But Dawkins (apparently) does not share these ideas; well, I am just pointing out that not all atheists say that science will determine morality.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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?
If they're consistent, yes. That doesn't mean they have to agree with each other's positions, of course.
quote:
If yes, then my original point stands.
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.
quote:
If no, then whoever does not respect the validity of other positions clearly does not believe that morality is subjective.
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!
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I agree with CS Lewis on this point.
See my sig.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:
But Dawkins (apparently) does not share these ideas; well, I am just pointing out that not all atheists say that science will determine morality.
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.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas
But science can give us a reasonable idea as to the quality of life of a Downs Syndrome child
Can it?
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.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
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.
I agree with CS Lewis on this point.
See my sig.
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?
I don't know whether you prefer an English or a Continental breakfast, but I can just picture you berating anyone else at the dinner table who chose differently to you. How DARE YOU make the Wrong choice! Wrong is Immoral! EVILDOERS! REPENT OF YOUR JENTACULAR SIN!!!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
That, of course, is a total caricature of what I am saying.
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. You may discover that it is not true, or you may argue for it as a method of discovering whether it is true starting from a position of agnosticism, but 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.
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.
[ 27. August 2014, 13:53: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas
But science can give us a reasonable idea as to the quality of life of a Downs Syndrome child
Can it?
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.
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.
I agree with you, as it happens, that this does not warrant the termination of a Downs Syndrome foetus. For what it is worth I discussed the matter with Mrs Gildas when our daughter was expected and we agreed that if the foetus was Downs Syndrome we, or rather she, would go through with it. The point is that science would have told us what we were signing up to with the decision but that it couldn't have told us whether or not the decision was moral.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
quote:
...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.
Ah, epistemology. I'm no expert, but isn't the distinction between knowledge and belief pretty well-covered by that particular branch of philosophy?
I can believe that someone is wrong without thinking their opinion is epistemically invalid. I do it all the bloody time. Hell, I'm doing it right now. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
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.
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.
.
*= unless you're the sort of chap who has two breakfasts, I suppose. Maybe that can be a third option.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas
But science can give us a reasonable idea as to the quality of life of a Downs Syndrome child
Can it?
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.
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.
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.
Meaning to say, he saw a lot of value in the lives of people with Downs syndrome but he could not bear his own child to suffer as he had seen his patients suffer.
I don't have any friends or close family (only distant family) with Downs myself so I can't claim to know much about it and I hope what I've written isn't too upsetting. It was an attempt to give a more compassionate take on the issue than Dawkins' and doesn't in any way excuse Dawkins.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I just watched the film 'Cafe de Flore', which is partly about a mother, determined that her Down's syndrome son, shall have a long and happy life. It's a very poignant film, involving also reincarnation, and other stuff, but in the end, she kills herself, her son, and his friend, also Down's syndrome, in a car crash. However, they are reincarnated. I thought it was very good, but some people hate it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Unless religious morality is implanted in us by God, it is presumably equally genetic and therefore equally rational.
Morality is rational; therefore aggression and power-seeking is irrational. Therefore aggression and power-seeking is not genetic.
Have I made my point?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
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.
Thing is, it is more can happen, not will happen.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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.
Unless religious morality is implanted in us by God, it is presumably equally genetic and therefore equally rational.
Morality is rational; therefore aggression and power-seeking is irrational. Therefore aggression and power-seeking is not genetic.
Have I made my point?
Really, no. Your maths are terrible.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
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.
Thing is, it is more can happen, not will happen.
You mean it's not inevitable that Downs causes horrible physical problems? I feared it was. (Thinking of distant cousin with Downs.)
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
