Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 121 of 187 (631930)
09-04-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by GDR
09-04-2011 3:13 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Modulous writes:
I wouldn't regard the criminilastion of belief to be consistent with an Age of Reason. Freedom of expression, belief and thought I would have thought would be cornerstones of any rational system.
But the OP suggested a world where religious, (superstitious) beliefs no longer exist.
No, GDR, just sidelining such irrational beliefs that in the normal discourse of policy formation such beliefs do not have any effect. Not criminalizing but ignoring. Like the opinions of a child toward their vegetables.
A world where no such superstitious beliefs existed is but a pipe dream since we are dealing with humans here. It is a very pleasant dream indeed but a dream none the less.
Absolutely not, but I contend that the reason for that is there is an absolute moral code that under-girds our societies.
The facts of history show that after millennia of experience with family, tribe, city, state and nation the relative moralism in these disparate societies converged on common themes. This experience shows that societies small and large benefit from conforming to these common themes. This in no way speaks to the existence of an "absolute morality" outside the human experience imposed from above. Just the convergence of moral themes based on our long history of trying to live together without the constant fear of being eaten by our neighbor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 3:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 8:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 122 of 187 (631934)
09-04-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
09-02-2011 2:06 PM


Re: Science is Pseudoskeptical and Illogical
Hi Straggles,
The problem with your whole "pseudoskepticism" thing is that by the terms of your own argument science itself is pseudoskeptical ...
Rather than get your undies in a knot, why don't you give us your answers to the questions posed below:
Message 70 (reply to Message 1):
It seems to be the expectation (or at least hope) of the new atheists that an age of reason be ushered into existence. An age in which religious and other superstitious beliefs are sidelined into irrelevance by a near universal acceptance that rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry hold the key to human advancement and progress.
Curiously, when anyone, atheists included, employs logical fallacies, pseudoskeptic arguments and pseudoscience, they are not contributing to a trend to increase rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry.
The first step then, to promote a new age of reason, is to rid oneself of false logic and pseudoskeptical and pseudoscientific arguments.
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
Authorization
One should become familiar with logical fallacies so that one can recognize them when they appear.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism
quote:
Pseudoskepticism - Definition
Pathological Skepticism is closedmindedness with deception: it is an irrational prejudice against new ideas which masquerades as proper Skepticism. A person under the sway of Pathological Skepticism will claim to support Reason and the scientific worldview while concealing their strongly negative emotional response against any questioning of contemporary accepted knowledge. The primary symptoms of Pathological Skepticism are the presence of scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate. In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.
Pseudoskepticism - Example Usage
  • Kaviraj2: RT @onlinerepertory: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (3) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof - http://t.co/t1QJ7QS
  • Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
  • Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH
  • postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
  • OpenMinded2010: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (5) Making unsubstantiated counter-claims - http://t.co/v7qJeRg

One should become familiar with pseudoskepticism (and the false types of arguments used) so that one can recognize it when it appears.
Pseudoscience - Wikipedia
quote:
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. ...
... Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5]
Equally, one should be aware of the pitfalls of pseudoscience (and the false types of arguments used) when it involves theistic and atheistic topics/arguments/positions, so that one can recognize them when they appear.
A (much) better basis, imho, is open-minded skepticism and the honesty to say "we don't know" when the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive, meaning we can be open to the possibilities that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence while remaining skeptical of views\positions that are not (or insufficiently) supported by evidence.
From this we can ask the following questions (note edited from previous questions in Message 87, taking into account some input from Panda to modify the original post slightly):
Is it good to employ logical fallacies?
  • if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering in a new age of reason.
  • if you do not think it is good, then you should like and agree with the comment "One should become familiar with logical fallacies so that one can recognize them when they appear" or at least not dislike it.
Is it good to employ pseudoskeptic arguments?
  • if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering a new age of reason.
  • if you do not think it is good, then you should like and agree with the comment "One should become familiar with pseudoskepticism (and the false types of arguments used) so that it can be recognize it when it appears" or at least not dislike it.
Is it good to employ pseudoscience?
  • if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering a new age of reason.
  • if you do not think it is good, then you should like and agree with the comment "Equally, one should be aware of the pitfalls of pseudoscience (and the false types of arguments used) when it involves theistic and atheistic topics/arguments/positions, so that one can recognize them when they appear" or at least not dislike it.
First off, please note that I started by including everyone: "Curiously, when anyone, atheists included, employs logical fallacies, pseudoskeptic arguments and pseudoscience, they are not contributing to a trend to increase rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry."
Do you agree that this applies to everyone (or at least anyone interested in promoting a new age of reason)?
This is not intended as an attack on you per se or anyone else, it is a definition of part of the problem.
The problem with your whole "pseudoskepticism" thing is that by the terms of your own argument science itself is pseudoskeptical and logically invalid.
Really? Or is that just your understanding of it. Let's look at the definition of pseudoskeptic again:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism
quote:
Pseudoskepticism - Definition
Pathological Skepticism is closedmindedness with deception: it is an irrational prejudice against new ideas which masquerades as proper Skepticism. A person under the sway of Pathological Skepticism will claim to support Reason and the scientific worldview while concealing their strongly negative emotional response against any questioning of contemporary accepted knowledge. The primary symptoms of Pathological Skepticism are the presence of scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate. In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.
Pseudoskepticism - Example Usage
  • Kaviraj2: RT @onlinerepertory: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (3) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof - http://t.co/t1QJ7QS
  • Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
  • Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH
  • postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
  • OpenMinded2010: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (5) Making unsubstantiated counter-claims - http://t.co/v7qJeRg

Now lets take the elements listed for pseudoskepticism one by one:
Is it good to employ closedmindedness?
  • if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering in a new age of reason.
Is it good to employ deception?
  • if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering in a new age of reason.
Is it good to employ scorn, sneering, or ridicule in place of reasoned debate?
  • if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering in a new age of reason.
Is it good to employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, or dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth?
  • if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering in a new age of reason.
Can you answer those questions? What about these ones:
  1. Is science closedminded?
  2. Does science employ deception?
  3. Does science use scorn, sneering, or ridicule in place of reasoned debate?
  4. Does science employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, or dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth?
If yes can you provide examples?
... and logically invalid.
Why is it logically invalid to start with an a priori assumption?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : log
Edited by RAZD, : science questions

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2011 2:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2011 11:51 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 09-05-2011 1:39 PM RAZD has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 123 of 187 (631937)
09-04-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Straggler
09-03-2011 9:52 PM


Re: Competing Methods of Knowing
Straggler writes:
On morality - Don't forget the human brain evolved not in an environment of globalisation and international politics but in an environment of small and relatively closely related hunter gatherer communities. So if you think our sense of morality doesn't make a lot of sense as something that would evolve from the modern world you are probably right!!!! But that's because it didn't. Having said that you seem to be grossly underestimating the ability of "selfish" genes to lead to highly co-operative, altruistic and unselfish individuals.
That's all fine but it tells us nothing about how morality even became an issue. Sure it developed over time in different cultures but it is a totally different issue when it comes to deciding what the underlying cause is.
Either morality developed for cultural reasons completely on its own or it developed because of an underlying absolute morality. It is like intelligence. To believe what you do you have to believe that morality evolved from completely amoral matter. I believe that morality evolved because of a moral, intelligent prime mover.
Straggler writes:
On God - No matter how eloquently you (or Robert Wright) argue the case the facts here are simple. Humans can and do invent gods. Humans can and do invent false positive intelligent agency in a variety of other forms too. We KNOW that humans can and do invent such things. So human invention theory is based on the undeniable and observable fact that humans can and will do this.
We've gone over this before. I agree with all tha,t but it tells us nothing about whether or not there is an intelligent prime mover.
Straggler writes:
God has certainly evolved. And if you listen to Wright or yourself on this subject you would think that the notion of God has evolved as more and more reliable (i.e. objective) positive evidence has been found regarding the true nature of God. But this just isn't the case is it? God has evolved to become increasingly ambiguous and increasingly undefined as our understanding of the world has pushed the concept of God into ever smaller gaps in our knowledge. The modern concept of god is a result of retreat in the face of knowledge. Not advancement!! That is not a credible basis for knowledge.
I don't accept that at all. When religion tried to turn its holy texts into books of science there was a couple of problems. We live in a world that we experience naturally, and science does a great job of explaining the natural. The Bible for example is not written to give us answers to scientific questions.
I would say that I agree with Wright in that our understanding of God continues to evolve although I realize that Wright sees it as being ambiguous as to whether God actually exists or not.
Straggler writes:
The only way to conclude that all the false positive agency humans are prone to is indicative of god is to start with the assumption that god exists and then interpret the evidence in that light. This is circular.
Not in all ways. The fact that we keep assuming god(s) with different attributes is in my view more indicative that the real thing exists than the idea that no god(s) exist. At any rate if my position is circular it is no more so than yours.
Straggler writes:
And let's not forget this false positive agency doesn't just apply to gods. For comparison - If we follow Wright's logic then the existence of so many conspiracy theories regarding some powerful group (aliens, Rothschilds, the Illuminati etc. etc.) puppeteering the world indicates the actual existence of some less defined and more plausible group manipulating the whole world to their dastardly ends.
Again so what? If there is a group of people that believe aliens have taken over the planet then it is has more legitimacy than if no one believed it. It doesn't make it true or false. We all just come to our own subjective conclusions. Personally, if people really do believe that - I think they're wrong.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 09-03-2011 9:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 09-05-2011 6:42 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 124 of 187 (631942)
09-04-2011 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Modulous
09-04-2011 4:00 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Modulous writes:
I contend we would be in a much better position to deal with these problematic facts if we study society and morals as evolved and imperfect traits rather than postulating some magic prime moral mover.
But that contention is circular. It is dependent on there not being a prime moral mover. If such an entity exists then it seems evident to me that the other approach would be preferable.
Modulous writes:
Right, so if religion is sidelined, genital mutilation for control cannot be justified anymore.
Those that would do that will find some other excuse or not bothering justifying it at all.
Modulous writes:
Then let me know how we might go about knowing the 'general desires of the prime moral mover'. What I've seen is just people claiming to know what the moral mover wants.
I'd suggest reading the Gospels. The thing is though we seem to have a general built in moral sense. The question is why is that. Is there a prime moral mover or not? If there isn't then I absolutely agree with you about the approach we should take. If I am right then you are absolutely wrong. The good news though is that regardless we do seem in general to have a built in moral sense. The future is hopeful.
Modulous writes:
That's what secular means, isn't it? The great moral advances our world has seen seem to have occurred alongside increasing secularisation.
We have secularization of governments, (a good thing), but I believe that the moral advances have come because of either a moral prime mover or greater socialization and I subjectively believe the former.
Modulous writes:
A prime moral mover is largely an irrelevant distraction that can lead to bad ideas being defended against all reason.
Unless the moral prime mover actually exists. Your viewpoint is again circular.
Modulous writes:
People still might believe some religious things, but they are limited to the moral sidelines, not centre stage.
There might be a prime moral mover. But we don't need to consult it in order to moral decisions, and indeed we generally don't. For the most part, with religion sidelined, we'll still have the same moral instincts, its just that the bad moral ideas that religion defends (sometimes with lethal zeal) will no longer be justifiable and will likewise get sidelined.
I think that over time religion is drawing us closer to the world that we both yearn for. Religions have had a very chequered history, but I truly believe that bit by bit they are moving in the right direction. Frankly, as I said earlier people are incredibly tribal. We will always find something to divide us. To see the rejection of religion as some kind of panacea is in my view wrongheaded. However again, both of our positions are dependent on our being correct on the existence or non-existence of a moral prime mover.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2011 4:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2011 8:44 PM GDR has replied
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2011 8:48 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 125 of 187 (631943)
09-04-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by AZPaul3
09-04-2011 4:20 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
AZPaul3 writes:
No, GDR, just sidelining such irrational beliefs that in the normal discourse of policy formation such beliefs do not have any effect. Not criminalizing but ignoring. Like the opinions of a child toward their vegetables.
Your view that my beliefs are irrational is strictly your subjective POV. It is my subjective view that intelligence evolving from a non-intelligent source is irrational. Our subjective views, rational or irrational, aren't necessarily true just because we believe them.
AZPaul3 writes:
The facts of history show that after millennia of experience with family, tribe, city, state and nation the relative moralism in these disparate societies converged on common themes. This experience shows that societies small and large benefit from conforming to these common themes. This in no way speaks to the existence of an "absolute morality" outside the human experience imposed from above. Just the convergence of moral themes based on our long history of trying to live together without the constant fear of being eaten by our neighbor.
That is an absolutely valid POV, that I just don't agree with.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2011 4:20 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2011 9:25 PM GDR has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 126 of 187 (631947)
09-04-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by GDR
09-04-2011 8:01 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
But that contention is circular. It is dependent on there not being a prime moral mover.
No, there might be a prime moral mover, but we have no way of objectively knowing its morality. The best we can do is pretend convincingly that we know something about its morality. We'd do better to study the things we know exist: human morality, society and so on, and try to shape them into what we think is best based on known facts not facts that we cannot know.
Those that would do that will find some other excuse or not bothering justifying it at all.
Some people might do something they don't feel is justified - but most people don't. And without having to give deference to a religious creed, we can rightly treat those that engage in the act as child abusing criminals.
Then let me know how we might go about knowing the 'general desires of the prime moral mover'. What I've seen is just people claiming to know what the moral mover wants.
I'd suggest reading the Gospels
I have. They are anonymous accounts of some people who claim knowledge of the prime mover, not a method of finding out the general desires of the prime moral mover. Unless you claim to know that the Gospels contain the desires of the prime moral mover, in which I ask you to explain how you have come to know this fact.
The thing is though we seem to have a general built in moral sense. The question is why is that.
Because we are social animals, so we cooperate for our mutual beneft. We are also evolved to dislike outgroups, which explains our lack of cooperation for groups that are not part of our in group.
If there isn't then I absolutely agree with you about the approach we should take. If I am right then you are absolutely wrong. The good news though is that regardless we do seem in general to have a built in moral sense.
All I suggest is we use our built in moral sense and add reason into the mix. We have no way of knowing what the fabled prime moral mover might want of us. We can guess that our moral instincts are in line with what it wants - but we can't know that. We can know facts, deduce consequences of our actions and try to shape our acts towards good ends and encourage others to do likewise.
God is a tool used to encourage others to act in a certain way, but it is a tool with negative consequences and I submit it is is one we can do away with now.
We have secularization of governments, (a good thing), but I believe that the moral advances have come because of either a moral prime mover or greater socialization and I subjectively believe the former.
Why would a moral prime mover allow thousands of years of immorality? Why would this moral prime mover start acting to improve human morality at exactly the same time that enlightenment principles took root in Europe?
Do you explain the Dark Ages by means of this moral prime mover too? Slavery? Racism? These are the themes that have dominated human history. And these are the themes that are often coupled with fervent belief in divine moral authority! Most people throughout history would hold repugnant (to us) moral opinions. Clearly they didn't have a way of knowing about the moral prime mover because they interpreted it as something very different that the enlightened theists of today.
Unless the moral prime mover actually exists.
Actually my point was the even if the prime mover actually exists, it is an irrelevant distraction. It tells us nothing about how we should live our lives, only that something else thinks we should live our lives in a certain unknown way.
And even if a moral prime mover exists, belief in this can still lead to bad ideas being defended (to lethal levels) against all reason.
I think that over time religion is drawing us closer to the world that we both yearn for. Religions have had a very chequered history, but I truly believe that bit by bit they are moving in the right direction.
I agree, they are getting less and less specific. More and more vague. Should the trend continue, they will be free of content and completely sidelined.
Frankly, as I said earlier people are incredibly tribal. We will always find something to divide us.
And I contend the less things there are to divide us the better, and religion creates BIG and UNRESOLVABLE divisions.
To see the rejection of religion as some kind of panacea is in my view wrongheaded.
Which is precisely what I have not been doing. I have said time and again it would not be a perfect world. There would still be crime and war. We'd just have one less divisive force in the world, a divisive force that drives good people to do socially harmful things (such as the AIDS example mentioned above, abortion issues, homosexual rights, stem cell research, religiously based territorial disputes, etc)
The real enemy is dogma. I would say any view dogmatically held is anathema to the Age of Reason which surely embraces the Principle of Fallibilism, and religion glorifies dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 8:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 10:12 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 127 of 187 (631949)
09-04-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by GDR
09-04-2011 8:01 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Hi again GDR
... but I believe that the moral advances have come because of either a moral prime mover or greater socialization and I subjectively believe the former.
Or the moral prime mover is causing the greater socialization as a gradual process.
Modulous writes:
People still might believe some religious things, but they are limited to the moral sidelines, not centre stage.
There might be a prime moral mover. But we don't need to consult it in order to moral decisions, and indeed we generally don't. For the most part, with religion sidelined, we'll still have the same moral instincts, its just that the bad moral ideas that religion defends (sometimes with lethal zeal) will no longer be justifiable and will likewise get sidelined.
I think that over time religion is drawing us closer to the world that we both yearn for. Religions have had a very chequered history, but I truly believe that bit by bit they are moving in the right direction ...
So the religions are evolving - as well as the "greater socialization" - towards a more uniform and egalitarian moral code that respects all people. Sometimes this is led by religions (abolition?) and sometimes by secular trends (equal pay for work of equal value?)
Modulous writes:
I contend we would be in a much better position to deal with these problematic facts if we study society and morals as evolved and imperfect traits rather than postulating some magic prime moral mover.
But that contention is circular. It is dependent on there not being a prime moral mover. If such an entity exists then it seems evident to me that the other approach would be preferable.
Personally I don't see it as an either\or proposition. There are some values that may come from either source - we can't necessarily tell - and an open-minded skeptical approach would not rule out one vs the other a priori.
Modulous writes:
Right, so if religion is sidelined, genital mutilation for control cannot be justified anymore.
Those that would do that will find some other excuse or not bothering justifying it at all.
Genital mutilation can be sidelined without marginalizing religions, but by marginalizing the specific questionable practices and beliefs that do not work towards a more uniform and egalitarian moral code that respects all people.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 8:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 10:19 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 133 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-05-2011 1:34 AM RAZD has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 128 of 187 (631954)
09-04-2011 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by GDR
09-04-2011 8:09 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Your view that my beliefs are irrational is strictly your subjective POV. It is my subjective view that intelligence evolving from a non-intelligent source is irrational. Our subjective views, rational or irrational, aren't necessarily true just because we believe them.
The difference here is not one of personal point of view or world view nor even interpretation of subjective thoughts. It is one of a difference in the acceptance of empirical facts.
Religion is superstition as a matter of practice and definition and superstition is irrational and illogical as a matter of practice and definition.
And while I am not want to belittle human intelligence, it is, again based upon the preponderance of the evidence, nothing more than another evolved trait like the blood clot cascade and the Krebs cycle. Your own superstitious-based incredulity blinds you to the empirical facts.
Our feelings and beliefs mean nothing when the evidence is there pointing directly to the issue. One can disagree all they want, and you are certainly entitled to do so, but this will not negate the fact that religion/superstition/irrational are forever interconnected.
We could now get into the whole dueling dictionaries and "what is evidence" mess again, but the facts will not change and, I suspect, neither will your view.
Though I still hold out hope that maybe we can turn you to the dark side someday.
I know, I know, when I fall on my knees and beg the forgiveness of VishnuIsisAllahUnicorn then you will become a Dawkins level 6.7 Athiest. Gotta keep the universe in balance ya know.
Edited by AZPaul3, : spelinns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 8:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 10:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 129 of 187 (631961)
09-04-2011 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Modulous
09-04-2011 8:44 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Modulous writes:
No, there might be a prime moral mover, but we have no way of objectively knowing its morality. The best we can do is pretend convincingly that we know something about its morality. We'd do better to study the things we know exist: human morality, society and so on, and try to shape them into what we think is best based on known facts not facts that we cannot know.
I don't have a problem with that at all. However, when it comes to morality there really is nothing we can know objectively, and how do we decide what facts are going to be used to shape society. Some things work for some people and some things work for others within the same society.
Modulous writes:
I have. They are anonymous accounts of some people who claim knowledge of the prime mover, not a method of finding out the general desires of the prime moral mover. Unless you claim to know that the Gospels contain the desires of the prime moral mover, in which I ask you to explain how you have come to know this fact.
I don't know it objectively. I can only know it subjectively in the same way that you choose to discount them subjectively. Actually I put a after saying that as I had no doubt of what you thought of them anyway.
Modulous writes:
Because we are social animals, so we cooperate for our mutual beneft. We are also evolved to dislike outgroups, which explains our lack of cooperation for groups that are not part of our in group.
That is certainly one valid POV.
Modulous writes:
All I suggest is we use our built in moral sense and add reason into the mix. We have no way of knowing what the fabled prime moral mover might want of us. We can guess that our moral instincts are in line with what it wants - but we can't know that. We can know facts, deduce consequences of our actions and try to shape our acts towards good ends and encourage others to do likewise.
God is a tool used to encourage others to act in a certain way, but it is a tool with negative consequences and I submit it is is one we can do away with now.
Once again I agree that we can't know in the way we know that 2+2=4, but I don't think that we should stop us trying to understand it subjectively.
God may be a tool but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
Modulous writes:
Do you explain the Dark Ages by means of this moral prime mover too? Slavery? Racism? These are the themes that have dominated human history. And these are the themes that are often coupled with fervent belief in divine moral authority! Most people throughout history would hold repugnant (to us) moral opinions. Clearly they didn't have a way of knowing about the moral prime mover because they interpreted it as something very different that the enlightened theists of today.
The argument about suffering is the most difficult argument there is when it comes to defending my Christian faith. I hate seeing people suffer and I believe God does to. I believe that in the end there will be perfect justice done. It's a faith thing.I have gone into a lot more detail on that in other threads but I would just be going off topic and I'm spending a lot of time on this already.
I don't agree that things just started getting better with the enlightenment, although I would agree that it has accelerated since then.
Modulous writes:
Actually my point was the even if the prime mover actually exists, it is an irrelevant distraction. It tells us nothing about how we should live our lives, only that something else thinks we should live our lives in a certain unknown way.
Actually many of the views that I share in common with you I hold because my reading of the Bible changed previously held views. I didn't instinctively believe that loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek or even forgiveness were great attributes to have. Through understanding the Bible I now hold a significantly different worldview.
Modulous writes:
And even if a moral prime mover exists, belief in this can still lead to bad ideas being defended (to lethal levels) against all reason.
Too true. Just the same we will always find some reason to justify bad behaviour.
Modulous writes:
And I contend the less things there are to divide us the better, and religion creates BIG and UNRESOLVABLE divisions.
In other threads I've pointed out points of agreement between the 3 Abrahamic religions. We might differ in doctrine but we can find points of contact about how we should live our lives.
Modulous writes:
The real enemy is dogma. I would say any view dogmatically held is anathema to the Age of Reason which surely embraces the Principle of Fallibilism, and religion glorifies dogma.
Actually I think I agree with that. As I believe that we have a God who has given us free will I agree that dogma, even if true, is something that should be promoted by reason and not by absolute authority.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2011 8:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2011 12:21 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 130 of 187 (631962)
09-04-2011 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by RAZD
09-04-2011 8:48 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
RAZD writes:
Or the moral prime mover is causing the greater socialization as a gradual process.
Absolutely. Actually I was trying to make that point but didn't do much of a job of it.
RSAD writes:
So the religions are evolving - as well as the "greater socialization" - towards a more uniform and egalitarian moral code that respects all people. Sometimes this is led by religions (abolition?) and sometimes by secular trends (equal pay for work of equal value?)
I agree
RAZD writes:
Personally I don't see it as an either\or proposition. There are some values that may come from either source - we can't necessarily tell - and an open-minded skeptical approach would not rule out one vs the other a priori.
Yes again. You're on a roll.
RAZD writes:
Genital mutilation can be sidelined without marginalizing religions, but by marginalizing the specific questionable practices and beliefs that do not work towards a more uniform and egalitarian moral code that respects all people.
Except that IMHO any religion that supports female, (that is what we were discussing), genital mutilation should be marginalized.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2011 8:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2011 9:51 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 131 of 187 (631964)
09-04-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by AZPaul3
09-04-2011 9:25 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
AZPaul3 writes:
The difference here is not one of personal point of view or world view nor even interpretation of subjective thoughts. It is one of a difference in the acceptance of empirical facts.
Which empirical fact am I denying?
AZPaul3 writes:
Though I still hold out hope that maybe we can turn you to the dark side someday.
From your POV I assumed I was already there.
AZPaul3 writes:
I know, I know, when I fall on my knees and beg the forgiveness of VishnuIsisAllahUnicorn then you will become a Dawkins level 6.7 Athiest. Gotta keep the universe in balance ya know.
I'd pray for you too but I see it is already too late. I was in Phoenix once in June and it was 119 degrees F so I know that you have already found your eternal resting place and are beyond hope.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2011 9:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2011 1:48 AM GDR has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 132 of 187 (631981)
09-05-2011 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
08-30-2011 10:09 AM


Re: The problem with "inductive reasoning"
Sorry to be coming into this so late, RAZD, but I gather that the issues are quite familiar to you by now...
RAZD writes:
Straggler's much hyped "inductive reasoning" is really nothing but his own intuitive thinking (guessing), and his much ballyhooed "objectively evidenced basis" is nothing more than confirmation bias that has not yet shown that a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination while ignoring other possibilities.
I suppose you've probably been over this too many times already (I'm sure Straggler thinks you have), but I hope it won't be taken as off-topic if I ask: what would it take to show (to your satisfaction) that a "supernatural entity is a product of human imagination"?
I suspect that this would actually be quite simple to demonstrate, and that it has probably been demonstrated countless times -- cargo cults in the South Pacific being a fairly recent and reasonably well documented category. Do you consider the creation of gods from imagination to be something demonstrable, or not?
And are you actually trying to make a point that specific supernatural entities, as described in particular cultures and scriptures, must all be considered to have some non-zero probability of not originating from human imagination?
If that's the case, and if I understand you correctly, this would entail that you are proposing we should acknowledge the possibility that any of the countless supernatural entities (indeed any combination thereof) have in fact been described on the basis of something other than imagination -- which in turn would entail any variety of suspensions or violations of natural laws.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor correction to a quote

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2011 10:09 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 133 of 187 (631983)
09-05-2011 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by RAZD
09-04-2011 8:48 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
RAZD writes:
... the moral prime mover is causing the greater socialization as a gradual process.
Is this "moral prime mover" an entity whose existence you would posit, RAZD? (I understand that you were replying to GDR, and I know that he clearly posits a deliberate and conscious entity as the "moral prime mover" -- I'm just wondering whether you share something like his conception.)
Isn't it sufficient to posit that something akin to natural selection, operating on human social/cultural structures, is functioning as the "prime mover"? Or do you want to attribute some notion of awareness, deliberation, plan, etc, on the part of some entity in order to make things move?
Indeed, looking at Robert Wright's book "Non-Zero", there seems to be a logical inevitability to the general improvement of the human condition -- despite the never-ending tension between forward and backward impulses, and the frequent lulls and setbacks. No deliberate agency is needed to plan it out, let alone any vague, supernatural entity to serve as such an agent.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2011 8:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2011 10:43 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 134 of 187 (631985)
09-05-2011 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by GDR
09-04-2011 10:25 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Which empirical fact am I denying?
Ooo, such an open field. It depends on the subject.
Human intelligence. Afterlife. Gods. Subjective evidence/conclusions. Religion as superstition. Earth "made" for us. The "basis" of natural laws. Absolute morality. The usual culprits of the superstitiously-inclined mind.
And yet you are so logical and concise in your analysis of OT v NT, the old god v the new Jesus, finding disconnects in the various sects, what scripture means and doesn't mean, etc. You have the intellectual skills. You also have blind spots where your intellect conflicts with your religious heart.
In your many exchanges with that Straggler character I kept seeing where you insisted on not looking where the facts were leading, or fearing where they were leading, opting instead for a "subjective" conclusion down a side road more in keeping with your religious heart's desires. You have the skills, now you need the discipline.
It's not easy being an atheist, having to make your own decisions on morality, right/wrong, good/bad, searching your own character for what kind of man you want to be, what kind of world you want to leave for your children, not being lead by the nose by some priest. But it is very gratifying to know that what is good and what is evil is within me, not forced from on high, and I have the knowledge and strength of character to recognize which is which without the insistence of a priest and that I decide. That I have the knowledge and the power and the means within me alone to be human with all that this entails expecting tolerance from others for my differences and tolerating, indeed rejoicing, the differences of others.
And the monthly dues are, well, somewhat reasonable, at least in the Phoenix area, the rituals are not all that physically taxing and, given the right mix of sauces and vegetables, the annual baby-eating can be quite filling.
All you have to do to join is defer to your head. Leave your heart to advise when there is not sufficient evidence, but not to rule in all things as you do now.
Having been brainwashed into a specific superstitious cult I understand it would not be easy for you to break the chains that imprison your good mind, GDR. But do try. We could get you into one of the apprentice programs? Start off as a Dawkins Level 3 and work your way up?
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 10:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 09-05-2011 2:19 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 135 of 187 (631988)
09-05-2011 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by AZPaul3
09-05-2011 1:48 AM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Hmmmm
AZPaul3 writes:
The difference here is not one of personal point of view or world view nor even interpretation of subjective thoughts. It is one of a difference in the acceptance of empirical facts.
GDR writes:
Which empirical fact am I denying?
A simple question to your assertion, and this is your response.
AZPaul3 writes:
Ooo, such an open field. It depends on the subject.
Human intelligence. Afterlife. Gods. Subjective evidence/conclusions. Religion as superstition. Earth "made" for us. The "basis" of natural laws. Absolute morality. The usual culprits of the superstitiously-inclined mind.
Where is the empirical evidence in all of that which I am denying?
The rest of the post is essentially an appeal to pride mixed in with the less than overt suggestion that I have been brainwashed. Frankly I originally became a Christian based on what I read and I can assure you that I haven't been brainwashed as I have moved around and had different ministers over the years most of which I haven't always seen eye to eye with theologically.
It is quite possible to be Christian without being brainwashed over having a frontal lobotomy you know.
If this kind of thinking is going to be central to "The Age of Reason", I'm inclined to think that just possibly the project might be in trouble.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2011 1:48 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2011 4:34 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024