Full Circle - Revenge of the Atheists

[Greendruid]

Well, this is an interesting turn of events indeed. Instead of letting Roman Catholicism run itself into the ground Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have decided to invest their hard-earned dollars in a spectacle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/critics-trial-pope-benedict-xvi) that will hopefully not disappoint.

Prominent atheists Richard Dawkins (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/dawkins) and Christopher Hitchens (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/christopher-hitchens) are paying lawyers to investigate the possibility of prosecuting the pope for crimes against humanity, their solicitor confirmed today.

The pair argue that Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pope-benedict-xvi) should be arrested when he visits Britain in September and put on trial for his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church. Last week a letter emerged (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/10/pope-paedophile-priests-cover-up) from 1985 in which the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger urged that a paedophilic priest in America not be defrocked for the "good of the universal church".
I'm not exactly sure what Dawkins and Hitchens hope to gain from all this. If nothing else a lying, evil Pope that supports institutional abuse of children while leading the Catholic sheep around is about the best argument they have against at least that form of Christianity. I assume that they are attempting to bring down the figurehead of that faith, but to what end I'm not really sure. :shrug: Thoughts? Applause? Head-scratching? Activist atheists always surprise me. Theism must make them very, very angry.

[Non Sequitur]

Well, this is an interesting turn of events indeed. Instead of letting Roman Catholicism run itself into the ground Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have decided to invest their hard-earned dollars in a spectacle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/critics-trial-pope-benedict-xvi) that will hopefully not disappoint.

I'm not exactly sure what Dawkins and Hitchens hope to gain from all this. If nothing else a lying, evil Pope that supports institutional abuse of children while leading the Catholic sheep around is about the best argument they have against at least that form of Christianity. I assume that they are attempting to bring down the figurehead of that faith, but to what end I'm not really sure. :shrug: Thoughts? Applause? Head-scratching? Activist atheists always surprise me. Theism must make them very, very angry.

I'm going to give my thoughts on this in a succinct and easy manner.

1. Dawkins and Hitchens I don't care about. I would rather not deal with pop-atheists.

2 The Catholic Church has a major problem in their priesthood that stems from two things. The more superficial problem is that they don't allow their priests to be married. Built up sexual tension tends to be bad. Luther agreed with Catholic teaching that celibacy is better, just impractical and ends up causing more problems then it solves. The second, and really more major problem is that they Catholic church has really no good means of removing bad priests because of their theology. In the Catholic Church, priesthood is a sacrament. A Sacrament, by definition of the Catholic church for the last thousand years or so, is a visible sign of invisible grace that is ordained by Christ and bestows grace on the individual. Most importantly, Sacraments can not be removed. The theological term is ex opere operato meaning "from the works, having been worked." What this complicated term means is that the Sacraments bestow their grace regardless of the person giving the sacrament and regardless of the person receiving the sacrament. The example is baptism. Once you are baptized, that's it. You are a member of the body of Christ whether you want to be or not. Priesthood in the Catholic church is also a sacrament. Once you receive it's grace, it's almost impossible to remove it. For comparison, In the Lutheran church being a member of the clergy is not a sacrament so if I abuse a child I get drummed out of clergy immediately (even for accusations). We have an easy to understand zero tolerance policy and the Catholics do not because of the nature of the priesthood itself. The Pope (then Cardinal) could not just drum a guy out of the priesthood given that he was at the time the high guardian of Catholic theology and dogma.

3. Since the problem is theological, this is not going to be a problem that will be fixed soon. It will require full councils and I would bet that pigs would fly before the Catholic church redefines the sacraments. "Quick" in Catholic language means 200 years.

[SMadsen]

I'm going to give my thoughts on this in a succinct and easy manner.

1. Dawkins and Hitchens I don't care about. I would rather not deal with pop-atheists.

2 The Catholic Church has a major problem in their priesthood that stems from two things. The more superficial problem is that they don't allow their priests to be married. Built up sexual tension tends to be bad. Luther agreed with Catholic teaching that celibacy is better, just impractical and ends up causing more problems then it solves. The second, and really more major problem is that they Catholic church has really no good means of removing bad priests because of their theology. In the Catholic Church, priesthood is a sacrament. A Sacrament, by definition of the Catholic church for the last thousand years or so, is a visible sign of invisible grace that is ordained by Christ and bestows grace on the individual. Most importantly, Sacraments can not be removed. The theological term is ex opere operato meaning "from the works, having been worked." What this complicated term means is that the Sacraments bestow their grace regardless of the person giving the sacrament and regardless of the person receiving the sacrament. The example is baptism. Once you are baptized, that's it. You are a member of the body of Christ whether you want to be or not. Priesthood in the Catholic church is also a sacrament. Once you receive it's grace, it's almost impossible to remove it. For comparison, In the Lutheran church being a member of the clergy is not a sacrament so if I abuse a child I get drummed out of clergy immediately (even for accusations). We have an easy to understand zero tolerance policy and the Catholics do not because of the nature of the priesthood itself. The Pope (then Cardinal) could not just drum a guy out of the priesthood given that he was at the time the high guardian of Catholic theology and dogma.

3. Since the problem is theological, this is not going to be a problem that will be fixed soon. It will require full councils and I would bet that pigs would fly before the Catholic church redefines the sacraments. "Quick" in Catholic language means 200 years.
Being an accomplice to sexual child abuse is a theological problem?!

I know how you meant it, though. But whether or not the Pope is an accomplice due to theological issues is completely irrelevant. In fact, that's part of the issue; that these people think their fantasy world still justifies their actions and even crimes against other people.

[Michael]

Well, this is an interesting turn of events indeed. Instead of letting Roman Catholicism run itself into the ground Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have decided to invest their hard-earned dollars in a spectacle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/critics-trial-pope-benedict-xvi) that will hopefully not disappoint.

I'm not exactly sure what Dawkins and Hitchens hope to gain from all this. If nothing else a lying, evil Pope that supports institutional abuse of children while leading the Catholic sheep around is about the best argument they have against at least that form of Christianity. I assume that they are attempting to bring down the figurehead of that faith, but to what end I'm not really sure. :shrug: Thoughts? Applause? Head-scratching? Activist atheists always surprise me. Theism must make them very, very angry.

These guys give atheism a bad reputation.

True atheists don't really care about religion. If Roman Catholics want to worship at the pederast-defense league, that's none of my religous concern.

But when atheists go on anti-religious tirades like this one, it justifies the theist counter-attack against atheists that they are just like any other religion.

That's a deadly accusation that must be shot down vehmently. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do with fanatically religious atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins going around supplying the ammunition for the opposition.

I consider Hitchens and Dawkins to be right up there with any of the rightwing Fundy leaders for pure obnoxiousness and the toxicity they bring to politics. Fanaticism in faith is quite ugly regardless of the content that faith.

[SMadsen]

These guys give atheism a bad reputation.

True atheists don't really care about religion. If Roman Catholics want to worship at the pederast-defense league, that's none of my religous concern.

But when atheists go on anti-religious tirades like this one, it justifies the theist counter-attack against atheists that they are just like any other religion.

That's a deadly accusation that must be shot down vehmently. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do with fanatically religious atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins going around supplying the ammunition for the opposition.

I consider Hitchens and Dawkins to be right up there with any of the rightwing Fundy leaders for pure obnoxiousness and the toxicity they bring to politics. Fanaticism in faith is quite ugly regardless of the content that faith.
Atheism will never be a religion regardless of how vehemently atheists may attack religions or religious institutions.

The current issue as an example, even, it corresponds to saying that people who vehemently attack people with certain sexual desires do so because they have certain sexual desires themselves. They may be fanatic in their dislike of people acting on certain sexual desires but such a fanatism is not a sexual desire.

Nor is fanatical opposition to religiosity a religion.

[Non Sequitur]

Being an accomplice to sexual child abuse is a theological problem?!

I know how you meant it, though. But whether or not the Pope is an accomplice due to theological issues is completely irrelevant. In fact, that's part of the issue; that these people think their fantasy world still justifies their actions and even crimes against other people.


Yes it is a theological problem. What you believe directly affects your actions. Also, because they are a church, their theological doctrines define the structure and operating procedure. The Pope is supposedly doing what he is doing because he has a certain understanding of what priests are. He may look like Emperor Palpatine, but He's not evil like the dark emperor.

On another note, lets remember that we are getting all our information from the media. I haven't seen a more respectable institution say the Pope is responsible yet.

[The Drunk Guy]

While I feel strongly that Pope Palpatine should face prosecution, I do regret that Dawkins and Hitchens are forking out cash to build a case that the justice system should be doing on its own. :shrug:

[Michael]

Atheism will never be a religion regardless of how vehemently atheists may attack religions or religious institutions.

Agressive atheism is vulnerable to the 'faith' charge.

And if that 'sticks', the 'agressive' qualifier gets dropped, and voila, atheism = faith.

Ergo, atheism cannot be the basis of any attack on the institution of religion. To do so is an attack against atheism.

Nor is fanatical opposition to religiosity a religion.
Doesn't matter. Fanatical adherence to atheism is an article of faith and the religious types are quite correct to make that accusation. Hitchens and Dawkins invite this and eliminate any possible argument against it.

In other words, Hitchens and Dawkins seek to attack the RCC - in the end, all they are doing is tarring atheists as 'fellow travellers' to these idiots who are acting like fanatically religious atheists.

Atheism held as an article of faith and acted upon as "true", is a religious assertion no matter how hard one tries to spin it. Atheism itself is not necessarily religious, but the line is a thin one and most atheists certainly do cross it. Certainly Hitchens and Dawkins are the 'high priests' of militant and religious atheism (where one's faith justifies everything).

[SMadsen]

Agressive atheism is vulnerable to the 'faith' charge.

And if that 'sticks', the 'agressive' qualifier gets dropped, and voila, atheism = faith.

Ergo, atheism cannot be the basis of any attack on the institution of religion. To do so is an attack against atheism.
There is no such thing as an attack against atheism. Unless one is getting ideas from Don Quijote, of course. There is simply nothing to attack.

Atheism on the other hand is an attack on theism by default (the assertion that theism is a non-issue is an attack on theism by definition), so, due to how theism works, I'm well aware that atheism is faith to the religious person whether or not atheists are more aggressive than they are by just being atheists. But that does not make it a faith. In fact, it has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with theism.

Doesn't matter. Fanatical adherence to atheism is an article of faith and the religious types are quite correct to make that accusation. Hitchens and Dawkins invite this and eliminate any possible argument against it.
No, they are not correct whatsoever in making that accusation. They can do nothing else but that's an entirely different matter.

In other words, Hitchens and Dawkins seek to attack the RCC - in the end, all they are doing is tarring atheists as 'fellow travellers' to these idiots who are acting like fanatically religious atheists.
The presence of theistic faith is what's tarring atheists. Not Dawkins and Hitchens.


Atheism held as an article of faith and acted upon as "true", is a religious assertion no matter how hard one tries to spin it. Atheism itself is not necessarily religious, but the line is a thin one and most atheists certainly do cross it. Certainly Hitchens and Dawkins are the 'high priests' of militant and religious atheism (where one's faith justifies everything).
No, the line is not a thin one, it's ultimately obese. Remove theism and atheism is a non-issue. If it was faith then it would exist regardlessly. It exists because of faith, not because it is faith. And it never will be.

[SMadsen]

Yes it is a theological problem.
Being an accomplice to sexual abuse of children is a theological problem??

[Non Sequitur]

Being an accomplice to sexual abuse of children is a theological problem??

Well, As I laid out above, the reasons for Catholic abuse continuing to happen are at root a theological problem. The reason these abuse scandals don't continue to happen in Protestant churches is because Protestants don't have a theological problem just firing clergy. It would be very hard for anyone in the Catholic church to just sack a priest. Therefore, they continue to be in the church and cause problems.

[Non Sequitur]

I should Add that my real point is just allowing priests to marry, or just arresting priests (or I guess the Pope) won't really solve the problem. Those things will only solve it on the surface level. You will still have bad priests in the parish because the Catholic Church has a very bad process of removing priests that is a direct result of their theology.

[Margot]

These guys give atheism a bad reputation.

True atheists don't really care about religion.

LOL. Define true atheism.

Is it like a true Christian, or a true Scotsman?

That's just funny.

[Margot]

The Pope is a criminal, or he's not, but there's no denying that there's a solid case against him and, as such, he should be tried. Why should the figurehead get off scot free because he's a figurehead?

[Donkey]

Dawkins is a good scientist, an ok writer, and a mediocre philosopher. Imo he should leave theology to the theologians. Entering the fray lends credibility to the opposing perspective.

[Margot]

Dawkins is a good scientist, an ok writer, and a mediocre philosopher. Imo he should leave theology to the theologians. Entering the fray lends credibility to the opposing perspective.

Because his facts and perspectives aren't correct or relevant?

And does that make the Pope any less guilty?

[Donkey]

Because his facts and perspectives aren't correct or relevant?
Because he starts sentences with "and."



Oh... were you talking about philosophy? ;)

[Margot]

Because he starts sentences with "and."



Oh... were you talking about philosophy? ;)

It's actually grammatically acceptable and sometimes necessary to start a sentence with "and." Or "but." And sometimes even "because." :p

But we digress...

[Greendruid]

It's actually grammatically acceptable and sometimes necessary to start a sentence with "and." Or "but." And sometimes even "because." :p

I wonder if the pope ever starts sentences with butt?

[Donkey]

It's actually grammatically acceptable and sometimes necessary to start a sentence with "and." Or "but." And sometimes even "because." :p

But we digress...
Not how he uses it. He writes how people talk. And that's not grammatically correct. He interjects punctuation like teacups in orbit. :p

[Michael]

LOL. Define true atheism.

Is it like a true Christian, or a true Scotsman?

That's just funny.

This is not a case of "no True Scotsman" since giving a clear and identifiable definition is quite easy. "No True Scotsman" type arguments are always predicated upon moving goalposts with an explicitly non-defined defintion.

The fact of the matter is that atheism fundamentally represents a rejection of the institutional structures of religion.

Agressive and militant atheism requires a complete and absolute faith in that belief - which is identical to the complete and absolute faith in religion.

Ergo, atheists who have certain faith in their belief are not 'true atheists'. They are just run-of-the-mill religious fanatics of a different colour.

[Zarquon]

This is not a case of "no True Scotsman" since giving a clear and identifiable definition is quite easy. "No True Scotsman" type arguments are always predicated upon moving goalposts with an explicitly non-defined defintion.

The fact of the matter is that atheism fundamentally represents a rejection of the institutional structures of religion.

Agressive and militant atheism requires a complete and absolute faith in that belief - which is identical to the complete and absolute faith in religion.

Ergo, atheists who have certain faith in their belief are not 'true atheists'. They are just run-of-the-mill religious fanatics of a different colour.
How is being confident of you position fanatical?

[Michael]

Well, As I laid out above, the reasons for Catholic abuse continuing to happen are at root a theological problem. The reason these abuse scandals don't continue to happen in Protestant churches is because Protestants don't have a theological problem just firing clergy. It would be very hard for anyone in the Catholic church to just sack a priest. Therefore, they continue to be in the church and cause problems.

I disagree. The issue here is not about pedophile priests.

The issue that the pope is being roasted over is the active efforts of the RCC to cover up and supress the evidence of sexual abuse of minors.

What the Church chooses to do with pedophile priests is indeed a 'theological' question, but it is entirely beside the point of his issue.

[dilettante]

This is not a case of "no True Scotsman" since giving a clear and identifiable definition is quite easy. "No True Scotsman" type arguments are always predicated upon moving goalposts with an explicitly non-defined defintion.

The fact of the matter is that atheism fundamentally represents a rejection of the institutional structures of religion.

Agressive and militant atheism requires a complete and absolute faith in that belief - which is identical to the complete and absolute faith in religion.

Ergo, atheists who have certain faith in their belief are not 'true atheists'. They are just run-of-the-mill religious fanatics of a different colour.

I think 'atheism' might be the wrong term for this debate.

'Atheism' by itself (disbelief in the existence of any divine being(s)) isn't a religion any more than 'theism' (belief in the existence of a divine being(s))by itself is a religion. Neither of them, by themselves, define a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, much less system of rituals and practices or a code of conduct.

Both atheism and theism are potentially components of religious worldviews. E.G. Theism is a component of the religion of Christianity, but Christianity is much more than simply bare-bones theism. Similarly, some flavors of secular humanism develop coherent beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose (or lack thereof) of the universe and proscribe desirable codes of conduct based on those beliefs. Such a worldview might well be called a religion, and atheism is a crucial component to it, but only one component.

Put another way, a Deist and atheist may have much more in common in their understanding of the nature of the universe and their views of proper conduct and observances (may, in fact, by closer religiously) than the same Deist and a fundamentalist evangelical or the same atheist and a rabidly anti-religious atheist fanatic.

Consequently, I doubt their atheism (in and of itself) is any less 'true', its merely mixed with a different set of beliefs about the nature of the universe and the proper role of humans in it.

[SMadsen]

This is not a case of "no True Scotsman" since giving a clear and identifiable definition is quite easy. "No True Scotsman" type arguments are always predicated upon moving goalposts with an explicitly non-defined defintion.

The fact of the matter is that atheism fundamentally represents a rejection of the institutional structures of religion.

Agressive and militant atheism requires a complete and absolute faith in that belief - which is identical to the complete and absolute faith in religion.

Ergo, atheists who have certain faith in their belief are not 'true atheists'. They are just run-of-the-mill religious fanatics of a different colour.
Atheism fundamentally presents an absence of the concept that coins it. Rejection of whatever has to do with the concept is a natural consequence of its absence.

Faith in the absence of faith is required? And the faith in the absence of faith is identical to religion? Wow, Michael.

[SMadsen]

I think 'atheism' might be the wrong term for this debate.

'Atheism' by itself (disbelief in the existence of any divine being(s)) isn't a religion any more than 'theism' (belief in the existence of a divine being(s))by itself is a religion. Neither of them, by themselves, define a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, much less system of rituals and practices or a code of conduct.

Both atheism and theism are potentially components of religious worldviews. E.G. Theism is a component of the religion of Christianity, but Christianity is much more than simply bare-bones theism. Similarly, some flavors of secular humanism develop coherent beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose (or lack thereof) of the universe and proscribe desirable codes of conduct based on those beliefs. Such a worldview might well be called a religion, and atheism is a crucial component to it, but only one component.

Put another way, a Deist and atheist may have much more in common in their understanding of the nature of the universe and their views of proper conduct and observances (may, in fact, by closer religiously) than the same Deist and a fundamentalist evangelical or the same atheist and a rabidly anti-religious atheist fanatic.

Consequently, I doubt their atheism (in and of itself) is any less 'true', its merely mixed with a different set of beliefs about the nature of the universe and the proper role of humans in it.
Beliefs "about the cause, nature, and purpose (or lack thereof) of the universe" and proscription of "desirable codes of conduct based on those beliefs", whatever that means, have NOTHING to do with atheism. Such beliefs have to do with "the cause, nature, and purpose (or lack thereof) of the universe" and proscription of "desirable codes of conduct based on those beliefs" (whatever that means).

Atheism is simply a lack of theistic faith. That's it. No more and no less. Needless to say (or is that wishful thinking?), lack of religious faith is not a religion anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Margot]

This is not a case of "no True Scotsman" since giving a clear and identifiable definition is quite easy. "No True Scotsman" type arguments are always predicated upon moving goalposts with an explicitly non-defined defintion.

The fact of the matter is that atheism fundamentally represents a rejection of the institutional structures of religion.

Agressive and militant atheism requires a complete and absolute faith in that belief - which is identical to the complete and absolute faith in religion.

Ergo, atheists who have certain faith in their belief are not 'true atheists'. They are just run-of-the-mill religious fanatics of a different colour.

Um.

No.

I've defined atheism for you. "Rejection" plays no part in it.

Faith is a belief without evidence. Scientific thought's most basic premise, most fundamental goal, is to seek out evidence, or a lack thereof. There is nothing even remotely like "faith" on the part of atheists who actively promote reason. Faith and skepticism are mutually exclusive.

[Non Sequitur]

I disagree. The issue here is not about pedophile priests.

The issue that the pope is being roasted over is the active efforts of the RCC to cover up and supress the evidence of sexual abuse of minors.

What the Church chooses to do with pedophile priests is indeed a 'theological' question, but it is entirely beside the point of his issue.

My point is that his (The Popes) actions are not just motivated by a desire to cover up the story. There is a genuine theological bind he is in if The Pope just defroks clergy. It throws a whole series of Catholic Dogma into question.

[Greendruid]

Everything beyond "Je pense donc je suis" is an act of faith, including scientific observations. On this many of us will have to agree to disagree.

[The Drunk Guy]

Beliefs "about the cause, nature, and purpose (or lack thereof) of the universe" and proscription of "desirable codes of conduct based on those beliefs", whatever that means, have NOTHING to do with atheism. Such beliefs have to do with "the cause, nature, and purpose (or lack thereof) of the universe" and proscription of "desirable codes of conduct based on those beliefs" (whatever that means).

Atheism is simply a lack of theistic faith. That's it. No more and no less. Needless to say (or is that wishful thinking?), lack of religious faith is not a religion anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Agreed. I have no faith in there being some giant floating in space that dilly-dallies in our daily lives. I know that I am a primate on a spinning planet in a vast galaxy. To reject something would mean that something has some weight behind it and religion just doesn't have that weight.

Something else I know is that the RCC has committed, condoned, and covered-up crime after crime since its creation nearly two thousand years ago. They have murdered, tortured, stolen, and raped the western world over and over again. They should be held to a social standard and face the laws that bind all of us apes. Since our elected officials and the puppets they control are all too afraid to tackle this issue properly, then one must commend these 'vigilantes' for seeking to end the Vatican's age of destruction.

[SMadsen]

Agreed. I have no faith in there being some giant floating in space that dilly-dallies in our daily lives. I know that I am a primate on a spinning planet in a vast galaxy. To reject something would mean that something has some weight behind it and religion just doesn't have that weight.
Indeed. If someone asks me if there is a god then I'll say no for the same reason that I'll say no if I'm asked if elfs exist: There are simply no indications of such existences. That's not a rejection. It's not a belief. It's not a faith. Gods, elfs and teapots orbiting Jupiter may or may not exist. And so what? It's simply irrelevant as far as there are no indications of the opposite.

[SMadsen]

Everything beyond "Je pense donc je suis" is an act of faith, including scientific observations. On this many of us will have to agree to disagree.
Except if there is no assertion. Then it is not an act of faith. Heck, it's not even an act.

[Donkey]

Except if there is no assertion. Then it is not an act of faith. Heck, it's not even an act.

I assert that I am communicating with you via the internet. I have faith in my senses, which inform me of this.

[Non Sequitur]

Agreed. I have no faith in there being some giant floating in space that dilly-dallies in our daily lives. I know that I am a primate on a spinning planet in a vast galaxy. To reject something would mean that something has some weight behind it and religion just doesn't have that weight.

Something else I know is that the RCC has committed, condoned, and covered-up crime after crime since its creation nearly two thousand years ago. They have murdered, tortured, stolen, and raped the western world over and over again. They should be held to a social standard and face the laws that bind all of us apes. Since our elected officials and the puppets they control are all too afraid to tackle this issue properly, then one must commend these 'vigilantes' for seeking to end the Vatican's age of destruction.

:lol: the thought that Dawkins and Hitchens are even a blip on the Vatican's radar screen is funny.

[The Drunk Guy]

:lol: the thought that Dawkins and Hitchens are even a blip on the Vatican's radar screen is funny.
You're probably right. But the fact is that their employ of thousands of pedophiles is barely on their radar, either. How ridiculous is that? What kind of Mount Olympus is the Vatican? Our earthly shit doesn't splatter on those hallowed walls? This is precisely why I would love for Dawkins and Hitchens to succeed.

I'm no fool, however. I do know that, no matter how wonderfully clever their lawyers are, no jurisdiction will act against the church. This is exactly what's wrong with the church. This is exactly why it should be attacked by atheists and anyone else who dislikes the church. It has nothing to do with Catholics and everything to do with a corrupt power that is above the laws of man.

[SMadsen]

I assert that I am communicating with you via the internet. I have faith in my senses, which inform me of this.
Ok.

My point was that I do not assert the existence of gods. Hence no faith.

[Non Sequitur]

You're probably right. But the fact is that their employ of thousands of pedophiles is barely on their radar, either. How ridiculous is that? What kind of Mount Olympus is the Vatican? Our earthly shit doesn't splatter on those hallowed walls? This is precisely why I would love for Dawkins and Hitchens to succeed.

I'm no fool, however. I do know that, no matter how wonderfully clever their lawyers are, no jurisdiction will act against the church. This is exactly what's wrong with the church. This is exactly why it should be attacked by atheists and anyone else who dislikes the church. It has nothing to do with Catholics and everything to do with a corrupt power that is above the laws of man.

I am going to throw out another theology point so watch out :lol:

Lutheran theology makes the distinction between the visible and invisible church. The visible church is the church that everyone see's. It's institutional, it's messy, it's got problems. The true church is always not quite visible and is something to be believed in (just like God or the Bible). This is why the two great creeds of the Church both say "I believe in the holy catholic Church." The Church is faith statement.

As for The Church being applicable to the laws of man, just remember "Vengeance is mine says the Lord" Romans 12:19

[SMadsen]

:lol: the thought that Dawkins and Hitchens are even a blip on the Vatican's radar screen is funny.
That could change if the Pope gets arrested in London.


... notice I said "could"!

[SMadsen]

As for The Church being applicable to the laws of man, just remember "Vengeance is mine says the Lord" Romans 12:19
Are you implying that legal matters do not apply to religious institutions because religious institutions have some scribblings that say they don't?

[Non Sequitur]

That could change if the Pope gets arrested in London.


... notice I said "could"!

Possibly. Could be good for him. Peter and plenty of other Popes have been arrested. He's in a good company if he does.

Ultimately though, Dawkins and Hitchens will come and go, but the Catholic church has lasted for 1700-2000 years (depending on how we are counting). This crisis will come and go. I think the Catholic church has faced far worse problems and survived.

[Non Sequitur]

Are you implying that legal matters do not apply to religious institutions because religious institutions have some scribblings that say they don't?

Oh heavens no! The Religious scribbling (the Bible) actually says the exact opposite: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." Romans 13:1-6.

My point was that if the Catholic Churches position is that they are beholden to no one but God, then God is just and the Catholic Church can not escape that fact.

[Donkey]

Possibly. Could be good for him. Peter and plenty of other Popes have been arrested. He's in a good company if he does.

Ultimately though, Dawkins and Hitchens will come and go, but the Catholic church has lasted for 1700-2000 years (depending on how we are counting). This crisis will come and go. I think the Catholic church has faced far worse problems and survived.
That's not a fair comparison. Popes come and go too. And science isn't going anywhere fast.

[SMadsen]

Possibly. Could be good for him. Peter and plenty of other Popes have been arrested. He's in a good company if he does.

Ultimately though, Dawkins and Hitchens will come and go, but the Catholic church has lasted for 1700-2000 years (depending on how we are counting). This crisis will come and go. I think the Catholic church has faced far worse problems and survived.
Yes, religions come and go. And with them, of course, people who don't believe in them. That goes without saying.

[Non Sequitur]

That's not a fair comparison. Popes come and go too. And science isn't going anywhere fast.

that's kind of my point. The Catholic Church itself (not the individual Popes, Cardinals, bishops, priests, or individual congregations) isn't going anywhere fast. If I had to bet whether my own Lutheran Church or the Catholic church would survive over the next thousand years, my money would be on the Catholics.

[dilettante]

Beliefs "about the cause, nature, and purpose (or lack thereof) of the universe" and proscription of "desirable codes of conduct based on those beliefs", whatever that means, have NOTHING to do with atheism. Such beliefs have to do with "the cause, nature, and purpose (or lack thereof) of the universe" and proscription of "desirable codes of conduct based on those beliefs" (whatever that means).

Atheism is simply a lack of theistic faith. That's it. No more and no less. Needless to say (or is that wishful thinking?), lack of religious faith is not a religion anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby.


I think we're agreeing on this, though the tone seems combative and that confuses me. Atheism qua atheism is not sufficient to define a religion (and neither is theism, for that matter). However it can be part of a religious worldview. Or, put another way, a religiously held worldview can be atheistic.

I was suggesting that Michael's distaste for Dawkins and Hitchens had less to do with their atheism, per se, then which their larger worldview (which might be described as 'religious') of which atheism was only one facet.

[SMadsen]

Oh heavens no! The Religious scribbling (the Bible) actually says the exact opposite: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." Romans 13:1-6.

My point was that if the Catholic Churches position is that they are beholden to no one but God, then God is just and the Catholic Church can not escape that fact.
I have to give you credit for that quote, Non Sequitur. My nostrils flutter in leery and uneasy ways but it does seem to fit the bill :)

[SMadsen]

I think we're agreeing on this, though the tone seems combative and that confuses me. Atheism qua atheism is not sufficient to define a religion (and neither is theism, for that matter). However it can be part of a religious worldview. Or, put another way, a religiously held worldview can be atheistic.
Yes, atheistic religions exist but that only means that the religions in question are not theistic. It does not mean that atheism is a religion or part of a religious worldview.

If my tone is bit hard it's because I not only hear all the time that atheism is a religion but also that an absence of theistic belief installs an incredible range of other beliefs. There is no end to it. Especially if the theist doesn't like X then the atheist must believe in X and/or have X as a moral standard. No they don't. They only do not believe in theistic gods. That's it. There is no other shared characteristic of the atheist than that.

I was suggesting that Michael's distaste for Dawkins and Hitchens had less to do with their atheism, per se, then which their larger worldview (which might be described as 'religious') of which atheism was only one facet.
Ok, then Michael can point out the things he doesn't like about Dawkins and Hitchens such as, perhaps, their secular humanism or materialism or nihilism or whatever it is. Atheism only refers to the lack of theistic beliefs.

[Non Sequitur]

I have to give you credit for that quote, Non Sequitur. My nostrils flutter in leery and uneasy ways but it does seem to fit the bill :)


haha, mine do too. Sometimes I wish I could ask Paul himself how far he intended this. Paul's point is a good one though. Government's exist to restrain evil.

[Michael]

I was suggesting that Michael's distaste for Dawkins and Hitchens had less to do with their atheism, per se, then which their larger worldview (which might be described as 'religious') of which atheism was only one facet.
Indeed.

I consider both Dawkins and Hitchens to be religious fanatics (both hold atheism as a religion - held as an article of faith and acted upon that basis).

[Michael]

Possibly. Could be good for him. Peter and plenty of other Popes have been arrested. He's in a good company if he does.

Ultimately though, Dawkins and Hitchens will come and go, but the Catholic church has lasted for 1700-2000 years (depending on how we are counting). This crisis will come and go. I think the Catholic church has faced far worse problems and survived.

Indeed. How the Catholic Church has survived with their massive accumulation of wealth is beyond me.

That was the number one complaint about 'the Church' a thousand years ago! According to Jesus, the rich are unlikely to enter heaven, yet the Roman Catholic Church is one of the richest of them all! :lol:

Admittedly, the Bishops don't go around wearing jewels, silks and furs anymore and bragging about the size of their estates... but the property holdings of the RCC and its various branches are enormous.

[Greendruid]

That could change if the Pope gets arrested in London.


... notice I said "could"!

And here lies the practical part of the application of this suit - the police involved in arresting the Pope. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe there are lots of police officers, commissioners and chiefs in London who would jump at this chance. However, I think it might be a PR shit-fit for the Brits in government and police to actually arrest the Pope. Mind you, if it was going to happen anywhere, London would be the place I'd choose to be high on the list of likely locations given its history with Catholicism. Given the rage of the Irish on this crumbling piece of their lives, I should think Dublin would be more fitting - pay attention to the clip at the end of this video (http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/a/u/1/0BpmeX6lwZc) to see what I'm talking about.

[SMadsen]

And here lies the practical part of the application of this suit - the police involved in arresting the Pope. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe there are lots of police officers, commissioners and chiefs in London who would jump at this chance. However, I think it might be a PR shit-fit for the Brits in government and police to actually arrest the Pope. Mind you, if it was going to happen anywhere, London would be the place I'd choose to be high on the list of likely locations given its history with Catholicism. Given the rage of the Irish on this crumbling piece of their lives, I should think Dublin would be more fitting - pay attention to the clip at the end of this video (http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/a/u/1/0BpmeX6lwZc) to see what I'm talking about.
Yes, that would indeed be the place if any. On second thought, though, it could be seen as mere continuance of the religious feud between Protestantism and Catholicism and that would turn child abuse into a religious issue, which, of course, it isn't.

[SMadsen]

Indeed.

I consider both Dawkins and Hitchens to be religious fanatics (both hold atheism as a religion - held as an article of faith and acted upon that basis).
What exactly are the tenets of their so-called "religion"?

[Michael]

What exactly are the tenets of their so-called "religion"?
That their articles of faith/belief are the only true ones. Rather like all other religions in that respect.

That is not compatible with the basic assertion that atheism consists of a simple rejection of all faith-based religious systems.

[andrewl]

That their articles of faith/belief are the only true ones. Rather like all other religions in that respect.

That is not compatible with the basic assertion that atheism consists of a simple rejection of all faith-based religious systems.

Ive read Dawkins and Harris and their only faith is that science gives us a factual view of nature, even human nature.

Trust in science does not equal atheism, even religious people trust science after all.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

That their articles of faith/belief are the only true ones. Rather like all other religions in that respect.

That is not compatible with the basic assertion that atheism consists of a simple rejection of all faith-based religious systems.
The article of what faith?

[Michael]

Ive read Dawkins and Harris and their only faith is that science gives us a factual view of nature, even human nature.
But science doesn't give us a "factual view of nature", let alone "human nature".

Science gives only a 'scientific view of nature' and a 'scientific view of human nature'. This may be preferable to a religious view, but it isn't all that different from the perspective of faith.

Science is as biased as religion is, though in an entirely different way (which is much less obnoxious, but still biased by definition).

Trust in science does not equal atheism, even religious people trust science after all.
Faith in science equals faith in religion. Faith is faith is faith, regardless of the subject or object.

[Michael]

The article of what faith?
Faith in the correctness of atheism and the wrongness of religion.

As noted above, faith is faith is faith. Content of any given faith is beside the point.

If you have a counter-argument to make, please do. Implied arguments through questions isn't my favorite way to discuss an issue.

[Michael]

And here lies the practical part of the application of this suit - the police involved in arresting the Pope. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe there are lots of police officers, commissioners and chiefs in London who would jump at this chance. However, I think it might be a PR shit-fit for the Brits in government and police to actually arrest the Pope. Mind you, if it was going to happen anywhere, London would be the place I'd choose to be high on the list of likely locations given its history with Catholicism. Given the rage of the Irish on this crumbling piece of their lives, I should think Dublin would be more fitting - pay attention to the clip at the end of this video (http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/a/u/1/0BpmeX6lwZc) to see what I'm talking about.
Couple of points here.

First of all, the Vatican is a sovereign state and the Pope is the head of that state. Arresting a head of state is really, really radical stuff. On this basis, I can't see any serious court entertaining the idea. It is a political powderkeg.

Secondly, London would be an extremely unlikely place due to its 'anti-catholic' reputation. London was one of the economic and political 'engines' of the protestant reformation in the 16th/17th century. London has always been the political heart of 'anti-clericalism' in Britain (and 'anti-popery'). Catholicism in Britain in the present day is normally only found in Wales, Scottish Lowlands and Northern England (York, Durham, Northumberland and the West Riding - aka Lancashire). The overwhelming majority of England is protestant.

Btw, I might add that without England on the side of the Protestants, I would have feared for the success of the reformation in Northern Europe. North Germany certainly supplied the intellectual rigor, but England was crucial for the geo-politics. The English defeat of the Spanish (Catholic) Armada in 1588 was integral to this. The English essentially prevented effective co-ordination for the various parts of the vast Habsburg (arch-Catholic) empire to concentrate military power in one place at one time (Northwestern Europe in particular).

If anyone, I'd say Spain is the place. They have a very strong catholic history to deflect any 'anti-catholic' PR issue, and they have a proven track record of seeking to try criminal heads-of-state. Short of Spain moving on the issue, I can't see any remotely realistic possibility - especially since Popes don't retire out of office. If Pope Ratzinger resigned or retired from his office, it could be legal 'open season' on him in a dozen countries, but short of that, I think it is darn near impossible to bring any legal authority against a sitting Pope.

[Non Sequitur]

Faith in the correctness of atheism and the wrongness of religion.

As noted above, faith is faith is faith. Content of any given faith is beside the point.

If you have a counter-argument to make, please do. Implied arguments through questions isn't my favorite way to discuss an issue.

But science doesn't give us a "factual view of nature", let alone "human nature".

Science gives only a 'scientific view of nature' and a 'scientific view of human nature'. This may be preferable to a religious view, but it isn't all that different from the perspective of faith.

Science is as biased as religion is, though in an entirely different way (which is much less obnoxious, but still biased by definition).


Faith in science equals faith in religion. Faith is faith is faith, regardless of the subject or object.

Michael, I like you :D

[SMadsen]

Faith in the correctness of atheism and the wrongness of religion.

As noted above, faith is faith is faith. Content of any given faith is beside the point.

If you have a counter-argument to make, please do. Implied arguments through questions isn't my favorite way to discuss an issue.
What you're arguing is this: Dawkins and Hitchens are rejecting religious faith and since religious faith rejects any other faith than itself then their rejection of faith must be religious as well. This is failed logic. Dawkins and Hitchens are rejecting religious faith in the same way that leprechauns, mermaids and unicorns can be rejected: Something can be rejected when there is no reason to assert it as true. Rejection of superstition is not superstition in itself, - it's a rejection of the belief in something that there is no reason to believe in.

Sure, they go one step further and call people nuts when they, themselves, have no reason to assert religions to be true. That may be offensive (Dawkins and Hitchens know very well that it's offensive) but it's not religious.

[andrewl]

But science doesn't give us a "factual view of nature", let alone "human nature".

It might not give us an absolutely True account of nature (god's eye view), but it certainly gives us a factual/practical/applicable/useful view of nature. I don't see how that can even be disputed, or for what purpose.

Science gives only a 'scientific view of nature' and a 'scientific view of human nature'. This may be preferable to a religious view, but it isn't all that different from the perspective of faith.

Sure it is very different. One is a factual view, the other is not.

Science is as biased as religion is, though in an entirely different way (which is much less obnoxious, but still biased by definition).

Biased towards what? Facts?

Faith in science equals faith in religion. Faith is faith is faith, regardless of the subject or object.

I reject that view. Science is the exact opposite of religion. Faith (in religion) implies a leap of logic, belief in the supernatural, belief without evidence. Trust in science does no such thing.

Andrew

[Michael]

What you're arguing is this: Dawkins and Hitchens are rejecting religious faith and since religious faith rejects any other faith than itself then their rejection of faith must be religious as well. This is failed logic. Dawkins and Hitchens are rejecting religious faith in the same way that leprechauns, mermaids and unicorns can be rejected: Something can be rejected when there is no reason to assert it as true. Rejection of superstition is not superstition in itself, - it's a rejection of the belief in something that there is no reason to believe in.

Sure, they go one step further and call people nuts when they, themselves, have no reason to assert religions to be true. That may be offensive (Dawkins and Hitchens know very well that it's offensive) but it's not religious.

It is that "one step further" part that is the dividing line that I'm drawing here. I think I've been pretty consistent on that point in all of my arguments on this topic over the years. It is a rather tricky point, but I'll try and trace out the distinction here (once more).

Choosing to reject religion/superstition is a matter of subjective choice. Ultimately, in the sense of epistemology, the distinction between 'believer' and 'non-believer' is one of faith and faith alone. Both choices are equally valid on that basis.

It is thus perfectly reasonable and rational that some choose one or the other (or perhaps neither).

So far, no problem. The conflict between the two is entirely of the politics of accomodation. That is to say, the conflict is theoretically managable (for civil peace).

However, when one claims that the correctness of one faith-choice here is so much superior to the other faith-choice that it becomes policy to seek the elimination of the other faith-choice that we have a serious problem that poses a great danger to civil peace.

It is this latter action that I accuse Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris (et al) for taking that last fateful step and arguing/justifying an attack upon the other - seeking to deny the alternative faith choice.

It is all well and fine to 'lead the cheers' for your side, but to attack the other side crosses the line from 'rejecting superstition' to asserting or mandating a 'superiority of faith'. And crossing that line is not and cannot be rationally justified.

The bottom line here is that to deny the validity of faith in religion is to deny the validity of faith in the rational rejection of superstition.

When one starts asserting (and acting upon) the superiority of one's faith-choice, that's when I will accuse one of having religion.

The faith-choice of rejecting superstition does not cross that line at all.

[Michael]

It might not give us an absolutely True account of nature (god's eye view), but it certainly gives us a factual/practical/applicable/useful view of nature. I don't see how that can even be disputed, or for what purpose.



Sure it is very different. One is a factual view, the other is not.



Biased towards what? Facts?
Facts are always relative.

Science is biased according to the principle of measurement. That which can be physically measured, can be studied according to scientific rules and thus is deemed to be real and valid 'fact'.

That which cannot be measured is deemed to be non-existent and 'non-factual'.

Science has no choice but to operate this way in order to function as 'science'.

And because facts are always relative, that means that the 'truth-status' of any given fact, as determined by science, is always in flux. What science deems to be 'true fact' today, might be redefined tomorrow as 'false-fact'. Science indeed has a long history of redefining yesterday's 'true-fact' as today's 'false-fact'.

I reject that view. Science is the exact opposite of religion. Faith (in religion) implies a leap of logic, belief in the supernatural, belief without evidence. Trust in science does no such thing.

Andrew
Faith in the 'truth' of any given scientific 'fact' is just as valid as faith in any given 'supersition'. One can make subjective choices about rationality, society and morality to choose one type of faith or the other. But ultimately, faith is invoked in both cases.

In other words, you are putting faith in the 'truth' of scientific facts that just might not be actual scientific facts tomorrow. You are applying faith that this is the best and most rational course of your subjective behavior. That's all well and fine. But it isn't very different from the faith of the religious types.

And please note, matters of private conscience and matters of public policy are two different things. This is an extremely important distinction on this issue.

[SMadsen]

It is that "one step further" part that is the dividing line that I'm drawing here. I think I've been pretty consistent on that point in all of my arguments on this topic over the years. It is a rather tricky point, but I'll try and trace out the distinction here (once more).

Choosing to reject religion/superstition is a matter of subjective choice. Ultimately, in the sense of epistemology, the distinction between 'believer' and 'non-believer' is one of faith and faith alone. Both choices are equally valid on that basis.

It is thus perfectly reasonable and rational that some choose one or the other (or perhaps neither).
In the sense of epistemology, the distinction between belief and no belief is solely the presence of faith. The presence of faith can thus be coined a belief. An absence of faith cannot.

Whether or not the presence of faith can be called a choice, I will leave it up to those who possess the kind of faith we're discussing here. I have never made that kind of choice one way or the other.

So far, no problem. The conflict between the two is entirely of the politics of accomodation. That is to say, the conflict is theoretically managable (for civil peace).

However, when one claims that the correctness of one faith-choice here is so much superior to the other faith-choice that it becomes policy to seek the elimination of the other faith-choice that we have a serious problem that poses a great danger to civil peace.

It is this latter action that I accuse Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris (et al) for taking that last fateful step and arguing/justifying an attack upon the other - seeking to deny the alternative faith choice.

It is all well and fine to 'lead the cheers' for your side, but to attack the other side crosses the line from 'rejecting superstition' to asserting or mandating a 'superiority of faith'. And crossing that line is not and cannot be rationally justified.

The bottom line here is that to deny the validity of faith in religion is to deny the validity of faith in the rational rejection of superstition.

When one starts asserting (and acting upon) the superiority of one's faith-choice, that's when I will accuse one of having religion.

The faith-choice of rejecting superstition does not cross that line at all.
This is all based on the non sequitur that absence of faith is a choice. All that can be said about an absence of faith is that faith is not present. That's it.

Choice, hunger, the existence of pigfarms or 117 sightings of shooting stars in one night have no relevance.

[Michael]

In the sense of epistemology, the distinction between belief and no belief is solely the presence of faith. The presence of faith can thus be coined a belief. An absence of faith cannot.

Whether or not the presence of faith can be called a choice, I will leave it up to those who possess the kind of faith we're discussing here. I have never made that kind of choice one way or the other.


This is all based on the non sequitur that absence of faith is a choice. All that can be said about an absence of faith is that faith is not present. That's it.

Choice, hunger, the existence of pigfarms or 117 sightings of shooting stars in one night have no relevance.

I believe we've been over this previously. This is a strawman.

I've not been discussing atheism at all in this thread. I've been addressing one specific sub-set of atheists in particular, identified in the OP.

To use your definition, atheism is the absence of belief in religion (I don't accept this definition, but for the sake of argument, it will do). I don't dispute this. However, that's not what this discussion is about.

This thread is about one particular sub-set of atheists who are attacking religion. It is they that I have accused of faith. They are expressing the faith that their viewpoint is 100% correct and religion is wrong. That's a pure faith argument and identical to that of the religious types.

This is entirely different than simply choosing to reject religion. Simply choosing to reject religion (your definition) is atheism plain and simple. Acting on that choice and claiming it is 100% absolutely correct (and all others are wrong by definition) is not simple atheism anymore - it becomes a pure statement of faith that is identical to the religious types.

Hence the distinction between 'atheists' and 'militant atheists'. The former have little concern about religious theology. The latter are partisan warriors who are driven by the same certainty of faith of those they seek to attack. Your argument here that I call a 'strawman' requires that one ignores this distinction. This distinction has been integral to all of my posts in this thread.

[andrewl]

Facts are always relative.

Science is biased according to the principle of measurement. That which can be physically measured, can be studied according to scientific rules and thus is deemed to be real and valid 'fact'.

That which cannot be measured is deemed to be non-existent and 'non-factual'.

Science has no choice but to operate this way in order to function as 'science'.

And because facts are always relative, that means that the 'truth-status' of any given fact, as determined by science, is always in flux. What science deems to be 'true fact' today, might be redefined tomorrow as 'false-fact'. Science indeed has a long history of redefining yesterday's 'true-fact' as today's 'false-fact'.

Faith in the 'truth' of any given scientific 'fact' is just as valid as faith in any given 'supersition'. One can make subjective choices about rationality, society and morality to choose one type of faith or the other. But ultimately, faith is invoked in both cases.

In other words, you are putting faith in the 'truth' of scientific facts that just might not be actual scientific facts tomorrow. You are applying faith that this is the best and most rational course of your subjective behavior. That's all well and fine. But it isn't very different from the faith of the religious types.

The strong ability of science to adjust to change, new data, and new ideas is part of what makes it radically different from religious faith though.

You seem to be focusing on the broad equivalence of all belief, regardless of its content or value. Why not focus on the difference between dogma/superstition of religion vs. the adaptability and factual/practical knowledge of science.

Ultimately im just not sure why we (liberals?) seem so afraid to trust science over religion, even in matters of morality and ethics. Why the insistence on relativism? Sure, from the perspective of metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology its all relative, right? Yet we still live and suffer needlessly and we can still apply scientific methods to living, so why not value one way of knowing/being over another and not be afraid to promote that.

And please note, matters of private conscience and matters of public policy are two different things. This is an extremely important distinction on this issue.Yes, i agree with that statement. I am utterly convinced that some cultural practices are absurd, cruel, and insane, and i am also convinced this can be shown to be true in a scientific way. I.e., i think we would ultimately be better off without Christianity/Judaism/Islam but that does not mean i support a public policy that would outright ban these institutions.

Andrew

[Michael]

The strong ability of science to adjust to change, new data, and new ideas is part of what makes it radically different from religious faith though.
Does it?

Are you familiar with Thomas Khun and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

To put it simply, Kuhn shows that science doesn't adjust to change very well at all - indeed, it institutionally tries to oppose it.

And when change does come, it is more of the character of sociology than science.

Given the scientific history of eugenics and PCB's, I'm not so sure that science can be asserted as 'neutral' or trustworthy. Much of science is indeed taken on a point of faith.

You seem to be focusing on the broad equivalence of all belief, regardless of its content or value.
No I'm not. As I noted in my reply to SMadsen above, I've been addressing a specific sub-set of radical or militant atheists, not atheism in general.

That being said, when people start to pretend that their 'faith' in the purity of their atheist beliefs are superior by definition to the 'faith' of the religious types, then I will always go straight to epistemology and point out that 'faith is faith is faith'.

Why not focus on the difference between dogma/superstition of religion vs. the adaptability and factual/practical knowledge of science.
1. I don't see much difference in dogma between the two. Both are famously dogmatic.

2. That's not the issue under discussion here.

Ultimately im just not sure why we (liberals?) seem so afraid to trust science over religion, even in matters of morality and ethics.
The history of science supplies lots of reasons. Eugenics being a rather famous one. Phrenology being another. Electro-shock therapy is yet another. Shall we make a list?

Bottom line is that good liberals shouldn't place trust in anyone's faith - regardless if that faith is based on science or religion or morality. It is all just different flavors of ideology.

Why the insistence on relativism? Sure, from the perspective of metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology its all relative, right? Yet we still live and suffer needlessly and we can still apply scientific methods to living, so why not value one way of knowing/being over another and not be afraid to promote that.
I insist on relativism because it is the only viable interpretation of the known facts.

And please feel free to promote fact based science. Nothing is stopping you.

Btw, the existence of religion does not prevent you from preferring science-based faith in any way, shape or form.

That's the whole point here. The radical or militant atheist position is not about science - it is all about seeking to ban or deny any place for religion. That's pure authoritarianism (and arbitrary) which is why I oppose it.

Atheists have no right to ban religion any more than the religious types have the right to ban atheism. These are matters of private conscience that is outside the realm of legislation.

Yes, i agree with that statement. I am utterly convinced that some cultural practices are absurd, cruel, and insane, and i am also convinced this can be shown to be true in a scientific way. I.e., i think we would ultimately be better off without Christianity/Judaism/Islam but that does not mean i support a public policy that would outright ban these institutions.
But some atheists (whom I call militant or radical atheists) certainly do support the idea of banning religion or seek to make it illegal. Hence the backlash or attack on militant atheists for 'having religion'.

Atheism, like religion, is a private matter of conscience. It should be nobody's business but your own.

But when atheism is used to justify an attack on religion, I will certainly attack those 'pseudo' atheists with the accusation of faith and religion. True atheists have no business trying to take the Pope to court. It takes a militant religion-hater to do that.

Militant religion hating is not the defining definition of atheism. True atheists shouldn't care what the Pope is up to. That's a matter for the law and Catholics alone.

And if one objects to the legal standing of religion, your argument is against your own elected government, not the Pope or the Church.

[Zarquon]

That's the whole point here. The radical or militant atheist position is not about science - it is all about seeking to ban or deny any place for religion. That's pure authoritarianism (and arbitrary) which is why I oppose it.

Atheists have no right to ban religion any more than the religious types have the right to ban atheism. These are matters of private conscience that is outside the realm of legislation.


But some atheists (whom I call militant or radical atheists) certainly do support the idea of banning religion or seek to make it illegal. Hence the backlash or attack on militant atheists for 'having religion'.

Atheism, like religion, is a private matter of conscience. It should be nobody's business but your own.

But when atheism is used to justify an attack on religion, I will certainly attack those 'pseudo' atheists with the accusation of faith and religion. True atheists have no business trying to take the Pope to court. It takes a militant religion-hater to do that.

Militant religion hating is not the defining definition of atheism. True atheists shouldn't care what the Pope is up to. That's a matter for the law and Catholics alone.

And if one objects to the legal standing of religion, your argument is against your own elected government, not the Pope or the Church.
We(to the extent I may presume to speak on behalf of millions of well-meaning 'new' atheists) don't seek to ban it, we seek to isolate it and diminish its overblown and unwarranted social standing, through non-violent social means; which doesn't make us one bit like the religionists, who have thrived on suppression of dissent since the beginning.
And how can you say I shouldn't care about what the pope does?
That idiot heads a gilded and opulent organisation that deliberately feeds misinformation about HIV/AIDS to millions of poor and desperate Africans, besides steadfastly opposing social and scientific progress for the last millennium or so.:(
Why the fuck shouldn't I care?:mad:
And who the hell are you to call me a pseudo-atheist? Being anti-religious or anti-theistic is not antithetical to atheism, though they are not the same thing. And Dawkins and company are making the world far better place than contended bourgeois's like you:p.
And regarding "faith in science"; how can you equate a pre-modern, anthropocentric, arbitrary, and irrelevant view of the world(religion) with one that is the best approximate we have to objective truth(science)?

[Non Sequitur]

You seem to be focusing on the broad equivalence of all belief, regardless of its content or value. Why not focus on the difference between dogma/superstition of religion vs. the adaptability and factual/practical knowledge of science.

Andrew

How would we compare to two? Even if we grant that science isn't dogmatic we are talking about two different sources of knowledge. If the root of scientific knowledge is data that can be found in a world you can see and test, the root of religious knowledge runs contrary to that. The entire belief in divine revelation is an assertion that some knowledge cannot be tested.

In Christian theological terms, faith runs opposite to empirical knowledge. "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29). Faith's very definition (complete trust in promises yet unfulfilled) is a rejection of that kind of knowledge when we are relating toward God (notice I did not say a total rejection).

So in short, I'm not sure there would be a discussion there. From a Christian perspective we would either get the answer "science is a valid form of knowledge, but so is revelation" or the fundamentalist answer "only revelation is an accurate source of knowledge." Either way the discussion ends there.

We(to the extent I may presume to speak on behalf of millions of well-meaning 'new' atheists) don't seek to ban it, we seek to isolate it and diminish its overblown and unwarranted social standing, through non-violent social means; which doesn't make us one bit like the religionists, who have thrived on suppression of dissent since the beginning.
And how can you say I shouldn't care about what the pope does?
That idiot heads a gilded and opulent organisation that deliberately feeds misinformation about HIV/AIDS to millions of poor and desperate Africans, besides steadfastly opposing social and scientific progress for the last millennium or so.:(
Why the fuck shouldn't I care?:mad:
And who the hell are you to call me a pseudo-atheist? Being anti-religious or anti-theistic is not antithetical to atheism, though they are not the same thing. And Dawkins and company are making the world far better place than contended bourgeois's like you:p.
And regarding "faith in science"; how can you equate a pre-modern, anthropocentric, arbitrary, and irrelevant view of the world(religion) with one that is the best approximate we have to objective truth(science)?

wow :eek:

[Americano]

We(to the extent I may presume to speak on behalf of millions of well-meaning 'new' atheists) don't seek to ban it, we seek to isolate it and diminish its overblown and unwarranted social standing, through non-violent social means; which doesn't make us one bit like the religionists, who have thrived on suppression of dissent since the beginning. And how can you say I shouldn't care about what the pope does? That idiot heads a gilded and opulent organisation that deliberately feeds misinformation about HIV/AIDS to millions of poor and desperate Africans, besides steadfastly opposing social and scientific progress for the last millennium or so.:(

Bravo.

Why the fuck shouldn't I care?:mad:
And who the hell are you to call me a pseudo-atheist? Being anti-religious or anti-theistic is not antithetical to atheism, though they are not the same thing. And Dawkins and company are making the world far better place than contended bourgeois's like you:p.
And regarding "faith in science"; how can you equate a pre-modern, anthropocentric, arbitrary, and irrelevant view of the world(religion) with one that is the best approximate we have to objective truth(science)?

[JHC]

Well, this is an interesting turn of events indeed. Instead of letting Roman Catholicism run itself into the ground Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have decided to invest their hard-earned dollars in a spectacle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/critics-trial-pope-benedict-xvi) that will hopefully not disappoint.

I'm not exactly sure what Dawkins and Hitchens hope to gain from all this. If nothing else a lying, evil Pope that supports institutional abuse of children while leading the Catholic sheep around is about the best argument they have against at least that form of Christianity. I assume that they are attempting to bring down the figurehead of that faith, but to what end I'm not really sure. :shrug: Thoughts? Applause? Head-scratching? Activist atheists always surprise me. Theism must make them very, very angry.

I know, it's really a stretch to figure out what their motivation is isn't it? Those evil activists (of whatever stripe).

Pretend they aren't atheists and see if that helps. Let's say it this way: the leader of an organization that is in a habit of influencing adherents children and is therefore in direct contact with those children, finds out that one of the people that is responsible for this direct influence and contact with children is caught raping them.
For the sake of argument, lets say that this was not the type of influence that this organization is supposed to have. In fact, lets say that raping children is prohibited by the laws of the land in which this organization is allowed to conduct it's bidness.
But when the leader of the organization gets wind of the raping of children, rather than turn his underling over to the authorities, he hides the perp to "protect the reputation of the organization".
Now then, who should we get to play the part of the evil activist? Oh!, I know, how about the church lady!
Yes, she is also in charge of ordering the flowers for the services and coordinating activities for the Sunday School children. When she finds out about what this other organization has done, she is justifiably horrified. She loves little children. When she goes to the police, they tell her that the organization is off limits and will handle their own bidness. "And quit being such an activist! What are you?, out to bring down the entire organization?"
:ummm:
There ya go - a head scratchy.

[andrewl]

Does anybody disagree with the statement that public policy should be based on sound scientific principles over religious superstition?

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

Does anybody disagree with the statement that public policy should be based on sound scientific principles over religious superstition?

Andrew

I would have to have you and I clarify what we mean by religious? Technically speaking I think that the foundational statement of America (all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to be a religious statement on so many counts that it's hard to know where to begin. This does not mean that I don't think Government should be guided by this statement.

Also, there are fundamental Christian faith values that guide my politics. So if I thought about it a little bit more, I still might have to say I disagree.

[andrewl]

I would have to have you and I clarify what we mean by religious? Technically speaking I think that the foundational statement of America (all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to be a religious statement on so many counts that it's hard to know where to begin. This does not mean that I don't think Government should be guided by this statement.

Also, there are fundamental Christian faith values that guide my politics. So if I thought about it a little bit more, I still might have to say I disagree.

But is that foundational statement superstitious? It certainly is religious in its exclusivity to males and its mention of a creator.

To be more specific to what im talking about lets take prohibition against marijuana as an example. We live in a society where marijuana is illegal yet alcohol and cigarettes are legal. A scientific investigation into this would tell us that marijuana is the least harmful (it may actually be a benefit) to society of the three, yet the least harmful substance is the illegal one. Yet there seems to be a common idea in this culture that marijuana (typically a victimless crime, indeed, its victims are mainly a result of it being a crime) is a sin while the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes are not, or at least not up to a level of consumption. This is superstition.

Andrew

[Michael]

Does anybody disagree with the statement that public policy should be based on sound scientific principles over religious superstition?

Andrew
I don't.

I think Non Sequitur has pointed out a clear-cut case of how the USA was founded on religious superstition and that this is considered one of the bedrocks of liberty.

I might also point out that if public policy was based on sound scientific principles, we would have had formal eugenics policies in all western nations from 1890's until 1945.

Most homosexuals prior to the 1970s would have been entirely confined to mental institutions too - according to the best of scientific reasonings. We can put hysterical women in there too (all women over 45).

I'm sure I can think of other examples.

[Non Sequitur]

But is that foundational statement superstitious? It certainly is religious in its exclusivity to males and its mention of a creator.

To be more specific to what im talking about lets take prohibition against marijuana as an example. We live in a society where marijuana is illegal yet alcohol and cigarettes are legal. A scientific investigation into this would tell us that marijuana is the least harmful (it may actually be a benefit) to society of the three, yet the least harmful substance is the illegal one. Yet there seems to be a common idea in this culture that marijuana (typically a victimless crime, indeed, its victims are mainly a result of it being a crime) is a sin while the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes are not, or at least not up to a level of consumption. This is superstition.

Andrew

the creator and male parts are just the most explicit examples of religious belief, but the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is just as religious. I can't think of a single scientific proof that proves people have these rights. From a historical perspective there is also not a single shred of evidence that people have these rights. In fact, all the evidence seems to point to the contrary. If you saying "superstition" means anything you can't prove via the scientific method, then I can't see a single shred of evidence for the entire Western projects of liberty and equality. Therefore, the foundation for the American Project of rights and liberty is really just a faith statement.

Also, this argument assumes that science and the scientific method leads us to morality. I have a hard time seeing scientific proof leading us to solid knowledge of right and wrong. That is really a side argument, but I also don't believe that.

[Non Sequitur]

Most homosexuals prior to the 1970s would have been entirely confined to mental institutions too - according to the best of scientific reasonings. We can put hysterical women in there too (all women over 45).

I'm sure I can think of other examples.

that's a good point, we could go own about how minority groups have consistently had their rights abused in the name of science. Slavery arguments, the Tuskegee experiment, to homosexuality before 1970 all are good examples. I have no faith in Sciences ability to protect my rights.

[andrewl]

the creator and male parts are just the most explicit examples of religious belief, but the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is just as religious. I can't think of a single scientific proof that proves people have these rights. From a historical perspective there is also not a single shred of evidence that people have these rights. In fact, all the evidence seems to point to the contrary. If you saying "superstition" means anything you can't prove via the scientific method, then I can't see a single shred of evidence for the entire Western projects of liberty and equality. Therefore, the foundation for the American Project of rights and liberty is really just a faith statement.

Also, this argument assumes that science and the scientific method leads us to morality. I have a hard time seeing scientific proof leading us to solid knowledge of right and wrong. That is really a side argument, but I also don't believe that.

Can social science not tell us meaningful things about the best conditions for human satisfaction, health, and happiness?

Andrew

[andrewl]

I don't.

I think Non Sequitur has pointed out a clear-cut case of how the USA was founded on religious superstition and that this is considered one of the bedrocks of liberty.

It seems to be that one could also come to the conclusion that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is 'good' based on observation.

I might also point out that if public policy was based on sound scientific principles, we would have had formal eugenics policies in all western nations from 1890's until 1945.

Most homosexuals prior to the 1970s would have been entirely confined to mental institutions too - according to the best of scientific reasonings. We can put hysterical women in there too (all women over 45).

I'm sure I can think of other examples.

Can't argue with that.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

Can social science not tell us meaningful things about the best conditions for human satisfaction, health, and happiness?

Andrew

Tell us something meaningful? sure. The social sciences have a lot to teach us. That does not mean I think they are a satisfactory foundation for the concepts of freedom, justice, and liberty in a democratic and pluralistic society.

Also, this does not solve on of major problems. Social sciences still fall short when it comes to being the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong.

[andrewl]

Tell us something meaningful? sure. The social sciences have a lot to teach us. That does not mean I think they are a satisfactory foundation for the concepts of freedom, justice, and liberty in a democratic and pluralistic society.

I guess what i mean is that could one come to the same principle using science rather than religion? Or to put it another way, did (or could) the founders use scientific principles to come to those principles rather than religion. There must have been a rational basis for such principles, to put it yet another way.

Also, this does not solve on of major problems. Social sciences still fall short when it comes to being the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong.

Everything along these lines falls short does it not?

Andrew

[Michael]

Can social science not tell us meaningful things about the best conditions for human satisfaction, health, and happiness?

Andrew
Yes and no.

It all depends on your definition of "human satisfaction" and/or "happiness". For a long time "happiness" has been defined as "increasing GDP".

Social sciences can only compare relative measures of effectiveness of any given policy. They can't define the goal - that's entirely political and subjective.

[andrewl]

Yes and no.

It all depends on your definition of "human satisfaction" and/or "happiness". For a long time "happiness" has been defined as "increasing GDP".

Social sciences can only compare relative measures of effectiveness of any given policy. They can't define the goal - that's entirely political and subjective.

We seem to be OK using science to define it for other biological organisms, why not the human organism?

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

I guess what i mean is that could one come to the same principle using science rather than religion? Or to put it another way, did (or could) the founders use scientific principles to come to those principles rather than religion. There must have been a rational basis for such principles, to put it yet another way.

What scientific principles would they use? Observation certainly wouldn't lead you to that conclusion and for a large part i'm not sure how scientific principles could apply to discussions on rights.

To be clear, I am not saying that one has to believe in God to buy into the concepts of rights put forward in America. What I am arguing is that faith relationship involved in those concepts.

On another note, I am assuming when we say religion we mean faith based assertions or assertions that can't be proved objectively and not the organized structure, theology, and dogma of religion

Everything along these lines falls short does it not?

Andrew

Sure, short of the Law of God everything falls short. I don't think that sciences can really speak about right vs wrong though. That's not the job of science.

[andrewl]

What scientific principles would they use? Observation certainly wouldn't lead you to that conclusion and for a large part i'm not sure how scientific principles could apply to discussions on rights.

Why couldn't observation lead to those principles?

One can easily observe that without human rights there is a higher amount of oppression, which in turn causes an increase in senseless and avoidable suffering. Suffering is an observable and physical manifestation in the universe, and can be measured.


To be clear, I am not saying that one has to believe in God to buy into the concepts of rights put forward in America. What I am arguing is that faith relationship involved in those concepts.


But as has been covered, faith is not exclusive to religion. It can also apply to science.


On another note, I am assuming when we say religion we mean faith based assertions or assertions that can't be proved objectively and not the organized structure, theology, and dogma of religion

I concur.

Sure, short of the Law of God everything falls short. I don't think that sciences can really speak about right vs wrong though. That's not the job of science.

The "Law of God" is extrememly variable and in some iterations falls just as short at the very least, often way more off the mark. Sometimes it hits the mark even closer than cold rationality.

When you say that "determining right vs wrong is not the job of science" that is also a faith based statement and from my view not entirely accurate. I agree to the idea that "right vs wrong" is not exclusive to science, but i see no reason why we can't use scientific principles to help us determine what is right from wrong. To the point that faith in god (all different gods, including animism) itself can be observed and measured and weighed with regard to its effects on the human condition.

Andrew

[dilettante]

Why couldn't observation lead to those principles?

One can easily observe that without human rights there is a higher amount of oppression, which in turn causes an increase in senseless and avoidable suffering. Suffering is an observable and physical manifestation in the universe, and can be measured.


I think the issue here is that simply measuring the amount of suffering caused by some set of rights (or lack thereof) doesn't, in and of itself, tell you whether those rights are good or bad.

For example, a scientific study may tell you that 'policy X' will lead to 10 units of total human suffering, whereas 'policy Y' will lead to only 5 units of human suffering. But that doesn't tell you which policy you should implement unless you already know (or have decided) that total human suffering should be minimized. And science won't tell you that; it only provides quantifiable data. It's your moral and/or ideological framework that lets you employ that data usefully.

You wrote that you "see no reason why we can't use scientific principles to help us determine what is right from wrong." And I agree, but I think the key word there is "help". If you have already acquired the basic principle that minimizing human suffering is right and maximizing it is wrong, then through a scientific study you can deduce that implementing policy Y is right and employing policy X is wrong. But science itself never arrives at the basic principles; it isn't meant to. Those have to come from somewhere else, either personal desire, or "self-evident truths", or the Law of God, or whatever.

[andrewl]

I think the issue here is that simply measuring the amount of suffering caused by some set of rights (or lack thereof) doesn't, in and of itself, tell you whether those rights are good or bad.

For example, a scientific study may tell you that 'policy X' will lead to 10 units of total human suffering, whereas 'policy Y' will lead to only 5 units of human suffering. But that doesn't tell you which policy you should implement unless you already know (or have decided) that total human suffering should be minimized. And science won't tell you that; it only provides quantifiable data. It's your moral and/or ideological framework that lets you employ that data usefully.

You wrote that you "see no reason why we can't use scientific principles to help us determine what is right from wrong." And I agree, but I think the key word there is "help". If you have already acquired the basic principle that minimizing human suffering is right and maximizing it is wrong, then through a scientific study you can deduce that implementing policy Y is right and employing policy X is wrong. But science itself never arrives at the basic principles; it isn't meant to. Those have to come from somewhere else, either personal desire, or "self-evident truths", or the Law of God, or whatever.

Yes, i agree. We do start with the assumption that senseless pain, anguish, suffering, etc.. is bad and that mitigating it is good.

I am not sure this comes "from somewhere else" though. I'm sure there is a reason for this assumption that can be investigated and described using scientific methods.

Andrew

[dilettante]

Yes, i agree. We do start with the assumption that senseless pain, anguish, suffering, etc.. is bad and that mitigating it is good.

I am not sure this comes "from somewhere else" though. I'm sure there is a reason for this assumption that can be investigated and described using scientific methods.

Andrew

Perhaps, but science can not generate the basic "assumption", it can only investigate it.

And it's worth noting that this particular "assumption" that human suffering is bad and should be minimized isn't universally shared (certainly not historically) and there's plenty of disagreement on which suffering is "senseless" and which is not. People could entirely agree on the quantitative findings of science and still generate divergent moral codes based on differing underlying assumptions that give meaning to those findings.

[andrewl]

Perhaps, but science can not generate the basic "assumption", it can only investigate it.

But i'm specifically wondering whether science can justify it after the fact, in the same way that science justifies nourishment even though we still knew we had to eat for millions of years prior to any knowledge of nutritional sciences.

And it's worth noting that this particular "assumption" that human suffering is bad and should be minimized isn't universally shared (certainly not historically) and there's plenty of disagreement on which suffering is "senseless" and which is not. People could entirely agree on the quantitative findings of science and still generate divergent moral codes based on differing underlying assumptions that give meaning to those findings.But, using a science of morality, we can make a value judgment on what moral code results in the best conditions for the human experience.

Andrew

[dilettante]

But i'm specifically wondering whether science can justify it after the fact, in the same way that science justifies nourishment even though we still knew we had to eat for millions of years prior to any knowledge of nutritional sciences.

I think that comparison misses the point, though. Science explained why eating when we're hungry makes us feel better. But it didn't (and can't) address itself to questions of whether we should eat (although most people consider that one pretty obvious).

For example, science might be able to tell me that "Eating this donut will give me X utils of short-term happiness but will also increase my odds of a heart-attack by Y%", and then maybe explain why both of these are the case. But that doesn't actually answer the question of "Should I eat this donut?" unless I already have beliefs about the relative values of short-term happiness and longevity. Science gives quantitative facts and descriptions (and it does that very well); but it doesn't deal in qualitative judgments and imperatives, those just aren't scientific.

And you can't build a moral code or a system of rights purely out of quantitative and descriptive data. Such data is unquestionably helpful, but it isn't sufficient.


But, using a science of morality, we can make a value judgment on what moral code results in the best conditions for the human experience.

Andrew

This is true only if you already have an assumption about what "the best conditions for human experience" are. Science can only tell you that "moral code X leads to conditions Y". But it can't give you a judgment about the qualitative value of Y.

Put another way, science can help you implement your root morality more effectively, but can't help you create it. E.G. If your morality says that human suffering is bad, then science can help you figure out ways to decrease human suffering. But determining the "badness" of human suffering isn't a scientific endeavor.

[Non Sequitur]

Why couldn't observation lead to those principles?

One can easily observe that without human rights there is a higher amount of oppression, which in turn causes an increase in senseless and avoidable suffering. Suffering is an observable and physical manifestation in the universe, and can be measured.

Sure suffering exits and doesn't given certain conditions, but the foundational statement of American representative democracy is that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." If we look at that stateament as a hypothesis of sorts, the idea is that all people start off equal and by virtue of being human have certain rights that cannot be taken away. This basic proposition can be easily disproved if we just observe the human condition at the moment. Obviously people are not all born equal considering that where you are born highly dictates your future well-being. The rights of life and pursuit of happiness can't be observed as universal because they don't exist in many places on the planet. From this we can conlude one of two possibilities. Either:

1. These rights don't actually exist. If they actually did exist by virtue of being human and were "unalienable" then they would not be able to be taken away. Thus, the foundation of the Republic is false

or

2. these rights do exist because we believe them to. Despite Governments, corporations, and even religious leaders very apperent ability to take away these rights, we still believe that they exist. Just as Christian faith states that evil will be defeated (even though it seems so strong) so American representative democracy rests on the belief that these rights exist even when are not apparent.

That is what I mean when I say observation fails. To me, observation points to the exact opposite conclusion that the founders came to.


But as has been covered, faith is not exclusive to religion. It can also apply to science. Doesn't this just prove my point that religious (meaning faith in something) ideals are necessary for a government to function?:shrug:

When you say that "determining right vs wrong is not the job of science" that is also a faith based statement and from my view not entirely accurate. I agree to the idea that "right vs wrong" is not exclusive to science, but i see no reason why we can't use scientific principles to help us determine what is right from wrong. To the point that faith in god (all different gods, including animism) itself can be observed and measured and weighed with regard to its effects on the human condition.
By what standard are we then measuring the effects of Faith in god on society? If we use the example of the Burqa, I think the practice is demeaning of women, but I have had several Muslim women tell me it's the opposite. My problem is that science rests on an "objective" reasoning of things, but as soon as we get into right vs wrong we are not in the realm of objectivity anymore.

[andrewl]

I think that comparison misses the point, though. Science explained why eating when we're hungry makes us feel better. But it didn't (and can't) address itself to questions of whether we should eat (although most people consider that one pretty obvious).

For example, science might be able to tell me that "Eating this donut will give me X utils of short-term happiness but will also increase my odds of a heart-attack by Y%", and then maybe explain why both of these are the case. But that doesn't actually answer the question of "Should I eat this donut?" unless I already have beliefs about the relative values of short-term happiness and longevity. Science gives quantitative facts and descriptions (and it does that very well); but it doesn't deal in qualitative judgments and imperatives, those just aren't scientific.

And you can't build a moral code or a system of rights purely out of quantitative and descriptive data. Such data is unquestionably helpful, but it isn't sufficient.



This is true only if you already have an assumption about what "the best conditions for human experience" are. Science can only tell you that "moral code X leads to conditions Y". But it can't give you a judgment about the qualitative value of Y.

Put another way, science can help you implement your root morality more effectively, but can't help you create it. E.G. If your morality says that human suffering is bad, then science can help you figure out ways to decrease human suffering. But determining the "badness" of human suffering isn't a scientific endeavor.

The bolded is where i still struggle. Doesn't all science have this sort of problem? For example, we have formulated some equations for chemistry and they work fine for our human centered purposes and so we have considered our discoveries in chemistry to be "true". But how do we know we have the correct foundation for how chemistry really is in the universe - its entirely possible we don't have it right, yet it is useful regardless.

In other words, doesn't all science sneak in an a priori assumption as a necessity to practice science effectively to begin with?

Why should we treat a 'science of morality' any different. We would not give any credence to chemists who claim that oil has abiotic origins, or geologists who claim the earth is only a few thousand years old, so why would we give credence to any purveyor of morality who states that senseless suffering is 'good'?

Andrew

[andrewl]

Sure suffering exits and doesn't given certain conditions, but the foundational statement of American representative democracy is that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." If we look at that stateament as a hypothesis of sorts, the idea is that all people start off equal and by virtue of being human have certain rights that cannot be taken away. This basic proposition can be easily disproved if we just observe the human condition at the moment. Obviously people are not all born equal considering that where you are born highly dictates your future well-being. The rights of life and pursuit of happiness can't be observed as universal because they don't exist in many places on the planet. From this we can conlude one of two possibilities. Either:

1. These rights don't actually exist. If they actually did exist by virtue of being human and were "unalienable" then they would not be able to be taken away. Thus, the foundation of the Republic is false

or

2. these rights do exist because we believe them to. Despite Governments, corporations, and even religious leaders very apperent ability to take away these rights, we still believe that they exist. Just as Christian faith states that evil will be defeated (even though it seems so strong) so American representative democracy rests on the belief that these rights exist even when are not apparent.

That is what I mean when I say observation fails. To me, observation points to the exact opposite conclusion that the founders came to.

I was thinking that one could quite possibly observe that treating everybody as equal has ultimately better consequences for the well-being of everybody regardless of whether or not everybody is actually equal.


Doesn't this just prove my point that religious (meaning faith in something) ideals are necessary for a government to function?:shrug:

Yes, certain assumptions or faith is required for anything to function, be it science, business, government, or religion.

When it comes to morality i am making a value judgment. If we make the assumption that suffering is bad and then we apply science to mitigating that suffering and promoting well-being do we end up with better results than if we had just relied on some religious texts? I think we do. It could also turn out that some religious tenets actually promote well being, and we could come to that conclusion via scientific observation - all the while assuming that suffering is bad and happiness is good.

By what standard are we then measuring the effects of Faith in god on society? If we use the example of the Burqa, I think the practice is demeaning of women, but I have had several Muslim women tell me it's the opposite. My problem is that science rests on an "objective" reasoning of things, but as soon as we get into right vs wrong we are not in the realm of objectivity anymore.

I would say choice is good, and not drill down to the level of whether the burqua itself is bad or good. If a muslim women were to tell me that she likes wearing the burqua i would ask her if she also likes the fact that the police can beat her bloody if she does not wear it. I suspect the answer would be no - but if the answer is yes i would simply disagree wither her on the same grounds that i would disagree with someone who says killing children for sport is good or that the moon is made of cheese.

Andrew

[dilettante]

The bolded is where i still struggle. Doesn't all science have this sort of problem? For example, we have formulated some equations for chemistry and they work fine for our human centered purposes and so we have considered our discoveries in chemistry to be "true". But how do we know we have the correct foundation for how chemistry really is in the universe - its entirely possible we don't have it right, yet it is useful regardless.

You say that the science of chemistry works "fine for our human centered purposes" and so it doesn't matter if it's "true" in some metaphysical sense. and I agree. But morality isn't about finding something that works "for our purposes", its about determining what our purposes should be. That's a fundamentally different objective.

Put another way, chemistry equations "work" because they allows us to accurately understand and predict what the material universe does and will do. You can test those equations through experimentation and scientific procedure. And if they are verified they can be useful to you in achieving your goals.
But morality isn't about what happens or what will happen, its about what should happen. It isn't useful in achieving your goals, it defines what your goals should be. There's no way to set up an experiment that addresses that.

E.G. You could certainly deploy the scientific method of discover whether or not feeding mice arsenic is detrimental to their health. If you exclude extraneous variables, have a control group, use a statically significant sample size and otherwise engage in the procedures that define good science, you will eventually come up with a solid factual conclusion: arsenic is unhealthy for mice.
But there's no way to set up an experiment to determine whether or not you should detrimentally affect the health of mice, whether its good or bad. Scientific procedures don't help you here because you can only observe what does happen, not what should have happened.


In other words, doesn't all science sneak in an a priori assumption as a necessity to practice science effectively to begin with?

Why should we treat a 'science of morality' any different. We would not give any credence to chemists who claim that oil has abiotic origins, or geologists who claim the earth is only a few thousand years old, so why would we give credence to any purveyor of morality who states that senseless suffering is 'good'?

Andrew

Well, suppose one scientist declared that "consuming large quantities of arsenic is beneficial to the health of a mouse." Another scientist could then demand that he verify his statement via the accepted scientific methods and procedures, and eventually they would discover whether or not he was correct.
But if instead he declares that "killing mice is morally wrong", science offers no procedures with which to evaluate that declaration. In fact, science offers no way to even engage with it because it doesn't involve any factual claims that can be addressed through scientific methods.

Now, science is useful in deriving moral codes in the sense that they often combine moral and factual claims: e.g. "Feeding mice arsenic is bad because it kills them." Science could engage with and verify the factual part ('feeding mice arsenic kills them'), but it can't engage with the moral part ('killing mice is bad'), because none of its defining methods deal with such a question.

So while we don't have to (and perhaps shouldn't) give any credence to a purveyor of morality who states that "senseless suffering is good", our basis for rejecting his claims isn't scientific: it doesn't involve any of the methods or procedures that define science.

[Michael]

Why should we treat a 'science of morality' any different.
There is a big difference between 'hard' and 'soft' sciences. The 'hard' sciences are chemistry, physics, biology, etc., because they study 'objects' or 'things' that can be measured with confidence.

The social sciences (soft science) do indeed seek to use the techniques of science in the analysis of human affairs (political science, sociology, psychology, economics, etc), but they are limited because the 'rules of science' do not permit various experimentation techniques to be used upon human beings, thus negating the scientific technique's general ability to address the issue to the best of its technique.

Now if we did permit our scientists to put randomly selected humans into isolated prisons or deserted islands and play nasty tricks on them, then we could over time build up some real scientific data about real human reactions. But we don't allow this kind of testing due to human morality. Thus the science of human morality can never be a 'hard' science like biology or chemistry or physics, etc. We can not allow that to happen. :)