posted
My point, was to kmb's plea for moderation. Sometimes we do know the truth. The earth is billions of years old. If this contradicts some particular religious belief, too bad. I see no need to give such nonsense equal time. Any more than the extreme ideas of any other group religious or secular.
And most kids are gonna be told that the world is round and that the earth spins around the sun long before they can marshall the analytical skills to evaluate evidence.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that religions start doing the most harm when they make exactly the mistake that the evangelical atheists are making: deciding what others should believe.
Do you believe people should be entitled to believe that they are Napoleon?
Sure. They shouldn't necessarily be entitled to do some of the things which might result from that belief though. That's why some of what people believe, even if they feel that it is benign, is important to me.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom and Orlox, I was refering specifically to matters of faith. Matters where there can be no applicable evidence. Not to matters of science where there is applicable evidence.
I should have been more clear about that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: edit to add: I'm not saying Dawkins and his crowd are anywhere near this or have any intention of it or even that it will occur in their lifetimes. Just that this is where is starts.
Of course many people believe that a nuanced position does not necessarily have to be simplified to a dangerous fundamentalist belief.
Ideas and speech may very well occasionally lead to actions. We may observe that walking may very well occasionally lead to fist-fights. Are we to avoid that too?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, it isn't ideas and speech in general that I caution against. It is - how do I say this? - conviction that extends beyond one's personal realm of responsibility. Maybe.
I believe that people can be as convinced as they like about what is right for themselves. Deciding what is right for others (again subject to demonstrable harm) that a level of arrogance enters that leads the way to justifying coercion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
We must live together. We have to come to some agreement. We have to have limits of behavior, limits even to speech.
There are many, many beliefs that we do not allow free rein within the community. Mostly because they inevitably do harm, even if only to the deluded themselves.
The limits are established by public discourse. Like this conversation.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've actually been reading Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, recently.
While he's certainly not for religion, and considers it negative, he's no evangelical or fundamentalist of the kind we talk about in religious people.
Sure he's passionate about his views - who wouldn't be? But there's a major difference.
It's like... any of us would get annoyed listening to people talk about how the Earth is not round, but flat.
If millions and millions of people began to believe this, and acted hostile towards those who believed the Earth is round, spoke ill of them, said they will burn in hell, and tried to push laws that would force schools to teach it as a viable alternative (The Earth being round is just a theory. Literally, it's a theory, in the same way as evolution is), regardless of the evidence, in fact, even STATED that the evidence is either a vast conspiracy of scientists or else is just there to test their beliefs, or simply ignore it entirely and say, "that is what's true, and if the evidence says otherwise the evidence is wrong", if all of that occured, you bet all of us round-earthers would become, ahh, what's the word, hostile back.
Because it's not just a matter of free speech anymore, it would be a matter of keeping people from annihilating truth.
Wouldn't you get pissed if people started doing that in regards to the theory that the earth is round?
In the same manner, Dawkins is upset. Not because of a fundamentalist belief, but because people are not just being willfully ignorant, but would gleefully change the laws to force that ignorance on everyone else, at the very least in a social if not legal manner.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Megabyte, honey, there is evidence that the earth is round. I am talking about stuff that is beyond evidence."
Yet the flat-earthers, too, would claim that their stuff is beyond evidence. That evidence doesn't matter in this case, that it's something outside of it.
And there's evidence that life on Earth wasn't made 6000 years ago by a rather insecure and unfathomably cruel god.
That doesn't stop people from saying it was, regardless...
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orlox, like what? Wouldn't it also be non-demonstrable?
Megabyte, if those people want to believe it, don't expect others to believe it and don't expect others to behave in certain ways based on that belief...well, I think they would have to work pretty hard at avoiding the evidence.
And you might want to read what I have already said about scripture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Megabyte, if those people want to believe it, don't expect others to believe it and don't expect others to behave in certain ways based on that belief...well, I think they would have to work pretty hard at avoiding the evidence."
Yes. Yes they do. They work very hard on it, in fact. Some people even lately went so far as to create a museum showcasing their hard work avoiding evidence.
Which parts of what you wrote did you have in mind again, btw?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No need to apologize. I'm just a bit slow with the funny. My flippant meter must be off. In a bit of a hurry.
Megabyte, the flat earth people?
The part about scripture being a lots of books not just one, various culture, record of relationship with the Divine....
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Earth being round is just a theory. Literally, it's a theory, in the same way as evolution is...
While I think we're on the same page, I just need to point out that this is a misuse of the word "theory," at least in a scientific context.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've learned, what I know, there are two definitions of theory.
One of which is the way most people use it, which basically means hypothesis.
The other is the way scientists use it, which means, well, essentially the running conclusion on a subject to account for all the data, which is subject to change at any point if data goes against it or new data comes to pass.
In this sense, technically, the earth being round is a theory.
It's also a fact in the sense that it's an observed data point, but that's the same for evolution as well. Not that certain people care about that.
To kmboots:
I think I've lost you. I'm sorry, I was vague, and perhaps unclear what you were saying, so... I've lost you! I apologize!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's possible to come up with a perspective from which the earth is not round, like considering some kind of fourth dimension, it's more of a ring, or a turning or something. In it's fourth dimension it is a turning sphere. In it's fifth dimension it is a ring. Maybe? I don't know.
I was thinking about the pole star as I was driving home from work the other day, as it related to this conversation. It only appears stable because it is so far away, right? I mean, if we are going in circles around our sun, how does it appear fixed? How is it not moving? Does it, in fact, move?
I had wanted to ask, but it was many pages ago, if Dawkins or any other Atheists espouse particular virtues. Truth is obviously one. The whole purpose of objecting to religion is they believe it is false. I think they value other virtues, they just find them inherent to man rather than emanating from God, such as Love, Intelligence. Would it be safe to say they believe in every virtue normally attributed to God? What about Justice and Mercy?
km: Faith is the evidence of things not seen, which are true. It is not simply to wish to think for something that has no evidence. Setting aside the existence of God, I think faith (with a small f) is involved in the growth of Love. It is to act on Hope.
I don't think it is that Atheists eschew everything traditionally associated with God. They just believe these things are human. But can they be bound by rational argument?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Would it be safe to say they believe in every virtue normally attributed to God? What about Justice and Mercy? "
Yes. They do.
Except, of course, for those misanthropic few who don't. But such exceptions also exist in every group.
"I don't think it is that Atheists eschew everything traditionally associated with God. They just believe these things are human. But can they be bound by rational argument? "
Most everything good about humanity, altruism, love, justice, kindness, humility, mercy, agape, etc, can all be explained and understood by rational arguement.
So can the bad things.
Atheism itself, though, isn't a belief system per se.
Not anymore than Athorism is.
The lack of belief in, say, the Norse god Thor is not a systematic set of beliefs. And neither is the lack of belief in any god.
However, science, and rationalism, can explain much, including the basic human values.
But atheists can have different philosophies of life, very easily, since they are a group only in the sense that those who disbelieve in the ancient Greek gods are a united group. That is, not very united at all.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most everything good about humanity, altruism, love, justice, kindness, humility, mercy, agape, etc, can all be explained and understood by rational arguement.
What about the soft sciences? Psychology, Linguistics, Philosophy, Sociology? These sciences all have an annoying amount of play and subjectivity in them.
Well, what I wanted to talk about was Mormonism as Humanism. Like OSC's conclusions on Harry Potter that I was so annoyed by, that people (Or Harry Potter, anyway) are innately good.
I did move along in my understanding of this. I was thinking last night about how I really have come to a point of loving my husband more and more. I used to think people just said that because they heard it. And then I knew that Love can increase much more than my rational mind had supposed, that there may even be infinite Love.
P.S. What I had been missing about Card's discussion of Harry Potter is that Harry Potter did not obtain Virtue (power) but seeking it, but by submitting to Love.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, what I wanted to talk about was Mormonism as Humanism. Like OSC's conclusions on Harry Potter that I was so annoyed by, that people (Or Harry Potter, anyway) are innately good.
You're annoyed by the idea that people are innately good? Or am I reading that wrong? Please explain.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, personally, don't think people are innately "good" because I don't think there is a "goodness" that exists to be inherent in us. Or a badness. Just biology and heredity, environment, and timing.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megabyte, no problem. I'm just too lazy to retype all the stuff I've already written in this thread. I was objecting to the idea that all theists have a view of scripture that insists on a literal understanding.
pooka, I was using the word "evidence" in this discussion to mean something both observable and demonstrable.
AS the conversation seems to have back to Mormonism and on to Harry Potter, I haven't much to add anyway. Have fun!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're annoyed by the idea that people are innately good? Or am I reading that wrong? Please explain.
Well, it's an odd question. One of the problems I'm sure a lot of Atheists have is the idea that people need religion, need to be taught how to make "good" choices, that there is something wrong with people they way they are.
Strangely, most Mormons have a similar viewpoint as humanists in this matter (humanists not really being synonymous with atheists) that people are not born sinful. While I would certainly grant that people are not born sinful, I have had trouble understanding why sin appears to be inevitable. Anyway, as km said, this isn't a Mormonism thread. It's not even a humanism thread, really.
I was just wondering what some of the Atheists thought on the concept of human virtue and how one avoids the eugenics trap and things of that nature.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I didn't say that at all. Threads go where they will. It can be about Mormonism, if you want it to be. Or about Harry Potter. Really.
I was just explaining the nature of my participation. Nothing more. When and if it swings back to where I can poke my nose in, I will.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're annoyed by the idea that people are innately good? Or am I reading that wrong? Please explain.
Well, it's an odd question. One of the problems I'm sure a lot of Atheists have is the idea that people need religion, need to be taught how to make "good" choices, that there is something wrong with people they way they are.
Strangely, most Mormons have a similar viewpoint as humanists in this matter (humanists not really being synonymous with atheists) that people are not born sinful. While I would certainly grant that people are not born sinful, I have had trouble understanding why sin appears to be inevitable. Anyway, as km said, this isn't a Mormonism thread. It's not even a humanism thread, really.
I was just wondering what some of the Atheists thought on the concept of human virtue and how one avoids the eugenics trap and things of that nature.
Gotcha. I can only answer for myself, and I don't think people need religion. I believe people are generally good and moral, and that is the result of our evolution. Human virtue is a survival function.
You can see it in nature. A group of groundhogs, for example, will be feeding out in the open. At least one of the animals serves as a lookout at feeding time, and if it sees a predator it screeches (or make whatever sounds groundhogs make) and sends all its fellows back into their holes.
The act of screeching at the sight of a predator is immensely selfless, as the groundhog is making itself the most visible target. If 'morality', at least in this instance and as we define it, were not natural, the groundhog would just run off and leave the rest of its group to the predator.
I explained it to a friend of mine that I think people are generally good, and that fact itself is the reason for evil. People are good, but somewhat naive, and so they expect everyone else to be good. Because there are always exceptions to the rule, it becomes easy for the minority of 'bad' people to convince good people to help them in their 'bad goals' and 'bad methods'.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, trust is a virtue. It's how we learn as children.
But where do the bad people come from? Is it just a matter of different values? I tend toward the "self-interest" explanation.
In a way it goes back to the question of ambition. Certain instances of ambition allow for innovation and progress of humankind, so it is beneficial for it to exist, but it also creates a lot of problems.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But where do the bad people come from? Is it just a matter of different values?
To me, that's sort of like asking "where do the left handed people come from?". A combination of nature and nurture. Scientists are working now on trying to figure out if there is any difference in the brains of sociopaths and those of 'normal' people. But I personally doubt that brain chemistry is the only thing that makes people 'bad'.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are lots of varieties of bad behavior, and lots of reasons for it. The same act might be considered moral in one circumstance, and immoral in another, or legal in one setting and illegal in another, completely dependent on circumstance.
Basically, "bad" comes down to causing problems for the society at large in one way or another. Much of morality has to do with the expectations of the surrounding culture.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I personally doubt that brain chemistry is the only thing that makes people 'bad'.
As in, also learned behavior, or literally chemistry, so it could also be structure?
Also learned behavior.
As in, if we were to clone Stalin (for example), we could assume that the clone brain is identical to the original (or at least started that way). But depending on how the clone was raised and what were his experiences, he wouldn't necessarily be 'bad'.
More prone to it? Perhaps. That's what scientists are working on now.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As in, if we were to clone Stalin (for example), we could assume that the clone brain is identical to the original (or at least started that way). But depending on how the clone was raised and what were his experiences, he wouldn't necessarily be 'bad'.
I don't believe brain structure is principally determined by genetics. I think brains are like trees, and you can have one grow next to another that is a runner off the first, so they are genetically identical. And you can tell the type of tree from the pattern of shapes, but they won't have branches and leaves in the same locations or quantity.
But that's just my belief.
I haven't caught up on Nova in a while. I'll have to get back to that, though for some reason I feel guiltier watching videos than reading text when I should be cooking dinner.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The team found that the amount of gray matter in the frontal parts of the brain is determined by the genetic make-up of an individual's parents, and strongly correlates with that individual's cognitive ability, as measured by intelligence test (IQ) scores.
More importantly, these are the first images to uncover how normal genetic differences influence brain structure and intelligence. Brain regions controlling language and reading skills were virtually identical in identical twins, who share exactly the same genes, while siblings showed only 60 percent of the normal brain differences.
posted
Thought I'd bump this. Channel four in Britain released a new documentary made by Dawkins. This time the target is new-age healers and other non-religious superstition rather than evolution and religion.
posted
What I find interesting is that Dawkins tackles this particular subject just as aggressively as he does religion, and yet I'd be willing to bet that far less religious people will find this one nearly as offensive.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
New age healers can potentially harm people. If there is a good method for treating a disease and people use crystals instead, that can lead to real harm (I feel the same way about praying rather than using modern medicine).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
rollainm: It's obvious that other people's superstitions are silly, while our own superstitions are real. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just had a vision of a religious war started over different brands of Magic 8 Balls.
Incidentally, I'm still coming back to this thread. I didn't have internet access this past weekend.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
