Atheism , religion , ID etc
-
My question remains - do the laws 'want' to be observed? Do they purposefully provide for the existence of the observer? Is the observer built into the laws from their very most basic beginnings? "You get that which you tolerate"
I don't feel like that is true, but all we will ever have to go on are feelings and wishful thinking, which is why I usually try to stay as far away from phillosophy as possible. I have to admit it was a lot easier to ignore before learning about the standard model. It is very unsatifiying for the laws of physics to be built up in such and adhoc manner.
If evidence reaches a conclusion then it makes sense. If it doesn't, it's just lame to go on TRYING to prove a theory that you made up when all the evidence points the other way. That's how crazy is made. -espeir
-
I don't feel like that is true, but all we will ever have to go on are feelings and wishful thinking, which is why I usually try to stay as far away from phillosophy as possible. I have to admit it was a lot easier to ignore before learning about the standard model. It is very unsatifiying for the laws of physics to be built up in such and adhoc manner.
If evidence reaches a conclusion then it makes sense. If it doesn't, it's just lame to go on TRYING to prove a theory that you made up when all the evidence points the other way. That's how crazy is made. -espeir
Hey! I'm a signature!
-
And one of those instincts would be an instinct for morality. However, I think the argument that religion is just somehow taking advantage of such an instinct is lame. An instinct for morality would be like an instinct for language. It is significant only within the context of a given social order. Religion has served to direct our instinct for morality in ways that have been generally beneficial to society. I always find it curious that those who argue in favor of evolution, don't seem to understand that every society on the planet evolved societies organized around religion rather than athiesm. Athiesm does not, in fact, provide a society with the ability to forge moral frameworks, which is why societies have all rejected it as a foundation for thier cultures. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 11:51 Friday 7th April, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
I always find it curious that those who argue in favor of evolution, don't seem to understand that every society on the planet evolved societies organized around religion rather than athiesm.
That sounds like the whole misunderstanding that mankind is at the pinacle of the evolutionary pyramid. Just because evolution produces something adapted to a specific niche, from an earlier form, it doesn't mean the later form is superior. It is just better adapted to a changed condition like flightless birds. You might as well be arguing for a reduction in CO2 emissions. :-D
If evidence reaches a conclusion then it makes sense. If it doesn't, it's just lame to go on TRYING to prove a theory that you made up when all the evidence points the other way. That's how crazy is made. -espeir
-
Richard Northedge wrote:
I didn't say that atheism is a religion ("religion", for me, implies some kind of organised belief system) but I did say that it requires faith
That definition would have to include atheism as a religion. However, religion is more specifically an organized belief system of God's nature. You could believe that pigs actually have the ability to fly, but that doesn't make it a religion. Agnostics do not have religion because they don't attempt assert whether God exists or not.
Richard Northedge wrote:
To explain what I mean by giving a contrast, here is a different statement of faith: "Whatever is pleasurable, is good". This statement does give you some basis for deciding whether a given action is right or wrong. Hedonism isn't a religion either, in the "organised belief system" definition.
That's not a statement of religious faith as it involves no particular position on the nature of God. It's a statement of morality.
espeir wrote:
That definition would have to include atheism as a religion. However, religion is more specifically an organized belief system of God's nature.
I acknowledge that "religion" is a difficult concept to define. The first entry for it on dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion[^] references "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers", which would certainly exclude atheism. By "statement of faith" I meant "something that can't be proved or disproved by the scientific method". I think the scientific method can prove that pigs can't fly, but it can't make any kind of judgement about whether "whatever is pleasurable, is good". I agree that my example hedonism statement is not a religious statement, but it is a statement of faith under the definition I've just provided. I think we're largely in agreement, bar the semantics.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
by those who claim to know the supreme being.
Who claims to know the supreme being? Even the Pope is considered merely the "Vicar of Christ", not his personal buddy.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Those moral frameworks come from common sense
They seem like common sense now, because religion has been around since the dawn of man.
espeir wrote:
Who claims to know the supreme being?
Religious leaders.
espeir wrote:
They seem like common sense now, because religion has been around since the dawn of man.
And how did morality make it into religious books in the first place? Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I always find it curious that those who argue in favor of evolution, don't seem to understand that every society on the planet evolved societies organized around religion rather than athiesm.
That sounds like the whole misunderstanding that mankind is at the pinacle of the evolutionary pyramid. Just because evolution produces something adapted to a specific niche, from an earlier form, it doesn't mean the later form is superior. It is just better adapted to a changed condition like flightless birds. You might as well be arguing for a reduction in CO2 emissions. :-D
If evidence reaches a conclusion then it makes sense. If it doesn't, it's just lame to go on TRYING to prove a theory that you made up when all the evidence points the other way. That's how crazy is made. -espeir
andy brummer wrote:
Just because evolution produces something adapted to a specific niche, from an earlier form, it doesn't mean the later form is superior.
I never said it was superior. Only that those societies which were religious out competed any that were not. I think it is clear obvious that the underlieing laws of the universe clearly prefer religious observers... ;) "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 12:26 Friday 7th April, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
Who claims to know the supreme being?
Religious leaders.
espeir wrote:
They seem like common sense now, because religion has been around since the dawn of man.
And how did morality make it into religious books in the first place? Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Religious leaders.
Who?
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And how did morality make it into religious books in the first place?
Certainly not through common sense. Otherwise, what would be the purpose behind writing them down? When was the last time you saw a guidebook telling you how to practice common sense?
-
I never made that claim. Obviously it can because atheism has adopted aspects of morality which have never been considered moral by most religions. For example, Orgies and abortion are not considered immoral by atheists, but are by pretty much all religions. However, I do contend that atheist morality is doomed to perpetually degrade (as it has in the 20th century) from its already marginal state (which was derived from religion) because it lacks a specific source for that morality. That lack of a moral source destroys the concept of any sort of absolute morality, resulting in absolute moral relativism (which, of course, arose in the 20th century). As we have observed, moral relativism decays over time until you have, by today's standards, absolute immorality. That's what happened to Rome.
espeir wrote:
Obviously it can because atheism has adopted aspects of morality which have never been considered moral by most religions. For example, Orgies and abortion are not considered immoral by atheists, but are by pretty much all religions.
do you have an link to the official Atheist Moral Framework ? i want to verify things for myself - i'd hate to learn i've been believing the wrong things all this time.
espeir wrote:
because it lacks a specific source for that morality
the source is within us all. i don't believe people are morally hollow. i believe that there is knowledge of a set of fundamental "rights" and "wrongs" within all of us. i don't think we need irrational beliefs to recognize or to make use of that knowledge. however, i will credit orgainized religion with being a workable way to unify a community on some things that fall outside that core set of rights and wrongs (since pretty much everyone who isn't insane agrees on the big stuff anyway no matter what their religion). since unity on smaller matters of morality makes for a more homogenous community, and that generally makes for a happier community, it's not all bad. in fact, i believe that's organized religion's basic purpose: a way to enforce community norms. but then, as you'd expect from human institutions, individual religions claim in their own name that which is fundamental to all of us, and then tell the big lie that non-believers don't share those same core values (in effect, making them in-human, as i see). and then they encourage followers to give in to that base a-moral tendency we all share: to persecute non-believers.
espeir wrote:
That's what happened to Rome.
you just said moral relativism arose in the 20th century. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Richard Northedge wrote:
And this statement of faith (the one about life and matter etc.) doesn't provide you with any means to enable you to decide whether a given action is right or wrong.
Nor does it need to. Man (over time) has developed societies, government and the rule of law. Through these we establish basic human rights and sets of laws and principles about what is right and wrong. These are human constructs - no theistic or atheistic "faith" is required. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov -- modified at 12:10 Friday 7th April, 2006
Are you saying that basic human rights are founded on facts deduced from the scientific method? How can you construct an experiment to test whether it is true that "all human beings are born free and equal"?
-
andy brummer wrote:
Just because evolution produces something adapted to a specific niche, from an earlier form, it doesn't mean the later form is superior.
I never said it was superior. Only that those societies which were religious out competed any that were not. I think it is clear obvious that the underlieing laws of the universe clearly prefer religious observers... ;) "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 12:26 Friday 7th April, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
societies which were religious out competed any that were not.
Got any examples of "any that were not"?? "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
-
Let me try and disentangle what I said from what espeir said... When I used the phrase "moral framework", I was essentially meaning "Something that enables you to decide whether a given action is right or wrong". I didn't say that atheism is a religion ("religion", for me, implies some kind of organised belief system) but I did say that it requires faith; I wrote that to be an atheist, "you have to believe, without any evidence either way, that life and matter and the laws of the universe *just somehow* exist." And this statement of faith (the one about life and matter etc.) doesn't provide you with any means to enable you to decide whether a given action is right or wrong. To explain what I mean by giving a contrast, here is a different statement of faith: "Whatever is pleasurable, is good". This statement does give you some basis for deciding whether a given action is right or wrong. Hedonism isn't a religion either, in the "organised belief system" definition.
Richard Northedge wrote:
And this statement of faith (the one about life and matter etc.) doesn't provide you with any means to enable you to decide whether a given action is right or wrong.
no, but other things do. the Golden Rule, for example, is about a pure a statement of morality as you'll find anywhere. and even though it is known from the bible, it works perfectly well without jesus. all you need to get that one is the knowledge that the people you see around you share the same needs, fears and capability for emotion as you do, and that reciprocity is a big part of social interaction. everyone who isn't sociopathic figures that one out on their own. everyone recognizes the truth behind the golden rule, but not because they've all memorized Matthew, but because it's a fundamental part of how human society works. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Are you saying that basic human rights are founded on facts deduced from the scientific method? How can you construct an experiment to test whether it is true that "all human beings are born free and equal"?
Richard Northedge wrote:
Are you saying that basic human rights are founded on facts deduced from the scientific method?
Huh? I have no idea how you read that from what I wrote. I'm saying that human intelligence (along with our emotions) created societies, governments and laws. It's these things that establish what is considered right/wrong behavior. While heavily influenced by various organized religions (as witnessed by the varying definitions of right/wrong from one society to the next) these laws are not hard rules established by any god or predicated by science. They are soley human constructs. If mankind suddenly dissappears... so do our laws. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
please, i beg you: quit trying to break the English language.
Sorry. I will use small sentences. I forgot my audience.
-
And one of those instincts would be an instinct for morality. However, I think the argument that religion is just somehow taking advantage of such an instinct is lame. An instinct for morality would be like an instinct for language. It is significant only within the context of a given social order. Religion has served to direct our instinct for morality in ways that have been generally beneficial to society. I always find it curious that those who argue in favor of evolution, don't seem to understand that every society on the planet evolved societies organized around religion rather than athiesm. Athiesm does not, in fact, provide a society with the ability to forge moral frameworks, which is why societies have all rejected it as a foundation for thier cultures. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 11:51 Friday 7th April, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
which is why societies have all rejected it as a foundation for thier cultures
Er, China? Neither Buddhism or Taoism are theistic, they are religions as they make supernatural assumptions, but neither have a creator god at their core. Athiesm isn't suitable as a "core" for a society as it only exists in opposition to theism, it says nothing of morality on its own. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
by those who claim to know the supreme being.
Who claims to know the supreme being? Even the Pope is considered merely the "Vicar of Christ", not his personal buddy.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Those moral frameworks come from common sense
They seem like common sense now, because religion has been around since the dawn of man.
espeir wrote:
They seem like common sense now, because religion has been around since the dawn of man.
The golden rule is found in nature, primate behaviour is riddled with it. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
espeir wrote:
Obviously it can because atheism has adopted aspects of morality which have never been considered moral by most religions. For example, Orgies and abortion are not considered immoral by atheists, but are by pretty much all religions.
do you have an link to the official Atheist Moral Framework ? i want to verify things for myself - i'd hate to learn i've been believing the wrong things all this time.
espeir wrote:
because it lacks a specific source for that morality
the source is within us all. i don't believe people are morally hollow. i believe that there is knowledge of a set of fundamental "rights" and "wrongs" within all of us. i don't think we need irrational beliefs to recognize or to make use of that knowledge. however, i will credit orgainized religion with being a workable way to unify a community on some things that fall outside that core set of rights and wrongs (since pretty much everyone who isn't insane agrees on the big stuff anyway no matter what their religion). since unity on smaller matters of morality makes for a more homogenous community, and that generally makes for a happier community, it's not all bad. in fact, i believe that's organized religion's basic purpose: a way to enforce community norms. but then, as you'd expect from human institutions, individual religions claim in their own name that which is fundamental to all of us, and then tell the big lie that non-believers don't share those same core values (in effect, making them in-human, as i see). and then they encourage followers to give in to that base a-moral tendency we all share: to persecute non-believers.
espeir wrote:
That's what happened to Rome.
you just said moral relativism arose in the 20th century. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
do you have an link to the official Atheist Moral Framework ? i want to verify things for myself - i'd hate to learn i've been believing the wrong things all this time.
But you just claimed that atheists are capable of a moral having framework. Are you now saying that there isn't one? If so, why is that?
Chris Losinger wrote:
the source is within us all.
If that were the case, then there would be no murders, no stealing, no adultery, etc... so clearly that is not the case.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i don't believe people are morally hollow. i believe that there is knowledge of a set of fundamental "rights" and "wrongs" within all of us. i don't think we need irrational beliefs to recognize or to make use of that knowledge.
Those moral values are not innate. They are taught to us at a young age by our family and society. Society in turn derived its moral code from a long history of religion. As evidence, I'll point to the Korowai tribe in Papua New Guinea which indoctrinated cannibalism as part of its moral code. They existed independent from all other cultures and did not have the influence of a larger society to basically enforce the concept that cannibalism is wrong. So its quite clear that morality is not innate.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but then, as you'd expect from human institutions, individual religions claim in their own name that what is fundamental to all of us, and then tell the big lie that non-believers don't share those same core values (in effect, making them in-human, as i see). and then they encourage followers to give in to that base a-moral tendency we all share: to persecute non-believers.
Some religions do persecute those who do not participate, but (with the exception of Islam, of course) that's very rare. Christians tend to try to convert you to Christianity rather than make any attempt to persecute. There's nothing wrong with that. After all, I interpret the fact that you're arguing for atheism as an attempt to convert me.
Chris Losinger wrote:
you just said moral relativism arose in the 20th century.
I was referring to the current state of moral affairs initially. There are many aspects of our society that are currentlt considered acceptable that would have been
-
Then I would say that your instincts can pull you in different directions, but you need some way of deciding which route to take. A man might see a child in a burning house, and his survival instinct tells him to run for it, while his social instinct tells him to try and save the child. In order to be able to judge one of these actions as "right" and the other "wrong", you need some kind of measure or standard to compare them against. That measure or standard cannot itself be an instinct; it sits above them and enables you to choose between them.
the scenario you described can be explained by a combination of the strong parent-child bonds humans have, our capability for compassion (a.k.a. the ability to imagine ourselves in other's positions), and the desire to please others. imagine: the guy doesn't save the child. he looks down and walks quickly past. what do we think of him? we think he's an evil bastard. well, the guy knows that's what we'll think of him instinctively. and as a social creature, he has to decide if being thought of that way is worse than the risk of burning to death. combine that with the fact that he probably sympathizes with the girl and wants to alleviate her fear (to alleviate his own sympathetic fear), and the instinctive desire for people to protect children that aren't even their own... Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
Sorry. I will use small sentences.
Please do, you obviously haven't mastered long ones.
That's a run-on.
-
I never made that claim. Obviously it can because atheism has adopted aspects of morality which have never been considered moral by most religions. For example, Orgies and abortion are not considered immoral by atheists, but are by pretty much all religions. However, I do contend that atheist morality is doomed to perpetually degrade (as it has in the 20th century) from its already marginal state (which was derived from religion) because it lacks a specific source for that morality. That lack of a moral source destroys the concept of any sort of absolute morality, resulting in absolute moral relativism (which, of course, arose in the 20th century). As we have observed, moral relativism decays over time until you have, by today's standards, absolute immorality. That's what happened to Rome.
espeir wrote:
That's what happened to Rome.
You are kidding right? You do realise that the "moral core" of pagan roman society was stoisism and civic duty, which was disrupted by their adoption of Christianity. Personaly, I think it was an improvement in many ways. But the fact remains that it wasn't toga parties and buggery that caused the empire to fall, there were many factors, including the introduction of Christianity into public life. "As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear, without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country. Yet party-spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies, and perpetual correspondence, maintained the communion of distant churches: and the benevolent temper of the gospel was strengthened, though confined, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics. The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but, if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic. Religious precepts are easily obeyed, which indulge and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and genuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, though imperfect, effect
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
societies which were religious out competed any that were not.
Got any examples of "any that were not"?? "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
US vs. USSR