The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[enterthemadness]

-_-....piss off and die in a fire, Republican Party.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...d-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/

Have you guys and gals read this? HAVE YOU?!

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

From the religion side, I think it’s because “science” is a comparatively softer target. It’s easier for non-scientists to critique, humble, limit what scientists do. On the other hand, everyone (including the religious) believes they’re rational. So to disparage rationalism somewhat implies that the alternative on offer (religion) is irrational. Can’t have that.

“Scientism” is the pejorative epithet for “a [misplaced] trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science [as] applied to all areas of investigation…”

As far as I know, no one has coined “rationaltism” as a means to chastise people for being too reasonable.

Although this walks back over points I've made in the past, I'm not entirely sure rationalism or science is a great way to run society. Seems like a lot of things that are scientifically true are not prescriptions on how to act or how to govern. It's that problem of trying to get an "ought" from an "is".

If someone had 7 children, and one had down syndrome, and the others did not, and that person took a bullet for that child, that would be fairly irrational since you deprive 6 children of their parent to save the weakest one with the least chance to meaningfully pass on your genetic information. Scientifically speaking, it's not a great decision, nor is it very rationally defensible. "Not liking death" isn't really a rational decision either. We all will die, it's certain, and science won't change that, ever. Yet you probably wouldn't want to live in a society where sacrificing it's weakest members to serve it's strongest was a virtue (and yet this happens all the time due to human nature).

Eventually you have to base society in something irrational. It doesn't have to be God, it could simply be like the Beatles' said "All You Need is Love", but in and of itself, these aren't rational or scientific. That's neither a testable nor is it a falsifiable statement.

Rationality and science seem to do some good in finding out facts, and determining some things we shouldn't do (like don't put that toaster in your bathtub), but it seems to fall apart when trying to describe positive liberties or things society ought to be doing.

 

[redhawk23]

We are talking about science as a moral system. Rational philosophy is not merely descriptive.

We can aspire to an ethical system guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience.


As for your example with the children: Sacrificing the weak for the benefit of the strong is not necessarily rational because it is not necessarily most beneficial for the good of the group as human survival is very much dependent upon our relationships. Even from a cold cost/benefit analysis it is not necessarily the best course of action.

What you're dealing in is Straw Vulcanism.

 

[moviedoors]

-_-....piss off and die in a fire, Republican Party.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...d-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/

Have you guys and gals read this? HAVE YOU?!

That so patently un-American it's almost funny.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Because it is not just rationalism alone but also empiricism.

Not to mention the question of how capable of rationality people actually are.

Then why not, "rationalism and empiricism," instead of needlessly manipulating standing definitions? I think an expanded definition of "science" does more harm than good, in this case. Of course, I may be biased.

From the religion side, I think it’s because “science” is a comparatively softer target. It’s easier for non-scientists to critique, humble, limit what scientists do. On the other hand, everyone (including the religious) believes they’re rational. So to disparage rationalism somewhat implies that the alternative on offer (religion) is irrational. Can’t have that.

“Scientism” is the pejorative epithet for “a [misplaced] trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science [as] applied to all areas of investigation…”

As far as I know, no one has coined “rationaltism” as a means to chastise people for being too reasonable.

I appreciate your position here, but this feels like negotiating with intellectual terrorists, if you catch my meaning. It makes me very uncomfortable.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Although this walks back over points I've made in the past, I'm not entirely sure rationalism or science is a great way to run society. Seems like a lot of things that are scientifically true are not prescriptions on how to act or how to govern. It's that problem of trying to get an "ought" from an "is".

If someone had 7 children, and one had down syndrome, and the others did not, and that person took a bullet for that child, that would be fairly irrational since you deprive 6 children of their parent to save the weakest one with the least chance to meaningfully pass on your genetic information. Scientifically speaking, it's not a great decision, nor is it very rationally defensible. "Not liking death" isn't really a rational decision either. We all will die, it's certain, and science won't change that, ever. Yet you probably wouldn't want to live in a society where sacrificing it's weakest members to serve it's strongest was a virtue (and yet this happens all the time due to human nature).

Eventually you have to base society in something irrational. It doesn't have to be God, it could simply be like the Beatles' said "All You Need is Love", but in and of itself, these aren't rational or scientific. That's neither a testable nor is it a falsifiable statement.

Rationality and science seem to do some good in finding out facts, and determining some things we shouldn't do (like don't put that toaster in your bathtub), but it seems to fall apart when trying to describe positive liberties or things society ought to be doing.

You seem to be conflating "science" with "rationality."

 

[childeroland]

That so patently un-American it's almost funny.

That's the same bunch that just proposed a bill to punish rape victims who get abortions for tampering with evidence. Something's in the water there.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

You seem to be conflating "science" with "rationality."

I wasn't attempting to conflate either, that's why I said "or".

In fact throughout that whole paragraph I referred to them as two different things.

 

[Schlosser85]

The stupid old woman behind the "tampering with evidence by aborting rape baby" bill doesn't deserve a sliver of basic respect from me or anyone else.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

We are talking about science as a moral system. Rational philosophy is not merely descriptive.

We can aspire to an ethical system guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience.


As for your example with the children: Sacrificing the weak for the benefit of the strong is not necessarily rational because it is not necessarily most beneficial for the good of the group as human survival is very much dependent upon our relationships. Even from a cold cost/benefit analysis it is not necessarily the best course of action.

What you're dealing in is Straw Vulcanism.

Then you're back to the problem of all this being completely subjective despite presenting itself as objective.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I wasn't attempting to conflate either, that's why I said "or".

I never said that you were attempting to conflate the two.

In fact throughout that whole paragraph I referred to them as two different things.

This is the part to which I was specifically referring:

If someone had 7 children, and one had down syndrome, and the others did not, and that person took a bullet for that child, that would be fairly irrational since you deprive 6 children of their parent to save the weakest one with the least chance to meaningfully pass on your genetic information. Scientifically speaking, it's not a great decision, nor is it very rationally defensible.

"Scientifically speaking?" That doesn't actually make sense.

 

[Edguy]

-_-....piss off and die in a fire, Republican Party.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...d-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/

Have you guys and gals read this? HAVE YOU?!

This is just sad. Things like this just seems unreal to me, I can't possibly understand how people can reason and act this way in such a developed society. If a politician said something like that in Norway, they would be murdered in the media, laughed of and be out of a job.

Not by our means or envelope of knowledge today...but neither was much of what we can do today 100 years ago.

But as discussed in another thread specifically about this...it could possibly entail some radical biological changes on our part to become beings that can survive for many nomadic generations in space...specifically without the same kind of gravity. To me, it'd have to be a big plan put in place and started at least centuries in advance as we build towards successive stages of off-world living. I think what bothers a lot of folks is the image/concept of humans becoming very different looking creatures, but it's something we very well may have to do rather than hoping for some magical teleportation or hyperspace or finding a planet just like Earth. Heck, we may look rather like octopi, but if it comes down to either that or accepting extinction, it could be yet another stage of evolution that we ourselves would induce and expedite.

Simulated gravity by rotational inertia is easily achieved. Also, humans evolving so much as to start looking noticeably different would take millions of years.

 

[redhawk23]

Then you're back to the problem of all this being completely subjective despite presenting itself as objective.

Or these are complex matters in which many contexts must be considered in order to determine the morality of any act, which is of course often not entirely possible in the moment. There's a reason why so much of our judgement comes afterwards and hindsight is 20/20.

Life rarely includes clear cut problems and answers.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You know I get that these laws are made by Christians to discriminate against atheists, but do the people who make them really think they will do anything except mildly annoy some atheists, and result in a law suit?

I guess this is what the Christian fanatics have been reduced to. Inconveniencing atheists with petty oaths. Oh if their witch burning ancestors could see them now.

 

[Doctor Evo]

You know I get that these laws are made by Christians to discriminate against atheists, but do the people who make them really think they will do anything except mildly annoy some atheists, and result in a law suit?

I guess this is what the Christian fanatics have been reduced to. Inconveniencing atheists with petty oaths. Oh if their witch burning ancestors could see them now.

MORE WEIGHT!

 

[Schlosser85]

its 4 in the morning and i cant sleep, so grouchy rant ahead.

I try to show more dignity and class than those who seek to oppress us, but sometimes...I just get really tired of respecting people who expect us to live by medieval ignorant laws when we are more intelligent than they are.

They define simple minded, intellectually incurious, primitive, reactionary, fearful bed wetting, and the abject stupidity they display is the one true sin that merits being ashamed of.

The hell with anything else anyone says is a sin, be ashamed of being ****ing dumb.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Don't show them any courtesy.

On a forum you have to be respectful (ironically enough), but in real life tell them how you really feel. Provided you're in the position to do so of course.

 

[Dr.]

Although this walks back over points I've made in the past, I'm not entirely sure rationalism or science is a great way to run society. Seems like a lot of things that are scientifically true are not prescriptions on how to act or how to govern. It's that problem of trying to get an "ought" from an "is".

If someone had 7 children, and one had down syndrome, and the others did not, and that person took a bullet for that child, that would be fairly irrational since you deprive 6 children of their parent to save the weakest one with the least chance to meaningfully pass on your genetic information. Scientifically speaking, it's not a great decision, nor is it very rationally defensible. "Not liking death" isn't really a rational decision either. We all will die, it's certain, and science won't change that, ever. Yet you probably wouldn't want to live in a society where sacrificing it's weakest members to serve it's strongest was a virtue (and yet this happens all the time due to human nature).

Eventually you have to base society in something irrational. It doesn't have to be God, it could simply be like the Beatles' said "All You Need is Love", but in and of itself, these aren't rational or scientific. That's neither a testable nor is it a falsifiable statement.

Rationality and science seem to do some good in finding out facts, and determining some things we shouldn't do (like don't put that toaster in your bathtub), but it seems to fall apart when trying to describe positive liberties or things society ought to be doing.

I agree with some of this ; good post.

In the beforetime… if you broke your leg, the tribe might regretfully leave you behind (to die) - since you’re a burden to collective survival. Nowadays, you get taken to a hospital. Sex is for reproduction… unless you choose contraception. Bottom line: we are no longer slaves to evolution.

Recently, there’s been some serious work on a nascent “science of morality” - ethical questions that can be explored - maybe even resolved - via hard science. Will this bear fruit? Perhaps, perhaps not. But one thing is clear: even if science can’t provide answers on how we ought to live, religion can’t either. Yet religious types are quick to critique science, remind us of its limitations - thus strongly implying that religion is standing by when science fails. But this is a rhetorical trick - not to mention a logical fallacy (if P is not true, Q is not automatically true by default).

 

[redhawk23]

Its not a matter of not being effected by evolutionary forces, rather human adaptation is driven largely by culture, knowledge and behavioral patterns that allow us to address problems and survive rather than purely biological.

It just so happens that current cultures around the world allow us to meet the challenges of many problems in ways that allow a great many people to survive.

This action through compassion is nothing new though. We have found prosthetic legs (from ornate fully carved feet to peg legs) that are thousands of years old.

Such action is often more actually beneficial to the survival of the group than cutting off apparent burdens as these people often still have much to offer, from other skills, to knowledge to various social roles.

Supposed "rational self interest" is often actually the least rational action from a survival point of view.

As for sex being only from procreation, tell that to the bonobos, and obviously in our own species and cultures, sex plays many major social roles.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I agree with some of this ; good post.

In the beforetime… if you broke your leg, the tribe might regretfully leave you behind (to die) - since you’re a burden to collective survival. Nowadays, you get taken to a hospital. Sex is for reproduction… unless you choose contraception. Bottom line: we are no longer slaves to evolution.

One could argue that these behavioral and technological innovations are themselves the result of evolution, and that this apparent freedom is merely illusory. In terms of human behavior, I'm inclined to believe that this is the case, and that our actions are still fundamentally determined and driven by our evolutionary past. I doubt we can ever escape it, try as we might.

Recently, there’s been some serious work on a nascent “science of morality” - ethical questions that can be explored - maybe even resolved - via hard science. Will this bear fruit? Perhaps, perhaps not. But one thing is clear: even if science can’t provide answers on how we ought to live, religion can’t either. Yet religious types are quick to critique science, remind us of its limitations - thus strongly implying that religion is standing by when science fails. But this is a rhetorical trick - not to mention a logical fallacy (if P is not true, Q is not automatically true by default).

 

[KalMart]

For those who haven't seen this on HBO...


https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/mea-maxima-culpa/index.html


...it's important that you do.

 

[enterthemadness]

I read a thing that a page I follow on Facebook posted that was about how these Animal Cruelty exposes are being blocked in 5 states...

And so I said...

Another reason why us humans are evil in nature. And why i dont understand people being afraid of hell or any gods or goddessess, when we generally act like monsters and have wars.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The funny thing is I'm not sure that science or atheism will ever fully take hold because of what I observe happening in reality. So it's a rather rational, sober reflection on the world. A bit like saying "well somebody has to pump my gas".

The thing is even in the age of technological superiority we all enjoy, I thought as aptly portrayed in Looper, it seems the "haves" and the "have nots" are a human legacy. We may, some of us, call ourselves middle class, but a Global study would tell you even our homeless are way better off than the rest of the world. You've always had something like that, to varying degrees, in society. In fact, arguably now the gap is far wider than ever. You still have people living in 0 AD like conditions, or worse. You definitely have many living in conditions similar to the 1500s. This may just be survival of the fittest exaggerated.

Most of the life expectancy changes deal with average. In other words less overall infant mortality. It's only recently that we've begun to extend humans to what's presumed to be their maximum natural life expectancy (115 years for a man, and about 125 for a woman).

I think for that reason it's always safe to assume 1) they'll always be a need for a subjugated work force and 2) they'll always be a class of undereducated/uneducated in any given society. I think frankly that's inevitable. Even with technology having humans replaced with robots, someone will have to be at the tail end of that money trail.

Politically also, since resources are finite and the cost associated with transporting them you also run into this again.

As for the religious aspect, not only is it appealing to those is desperate circumstances, I think their is some evolutionary advantage to it. Basically, if you can't hack it as a scientist, or your aptitudes don't lie in something that requires atheism or a belief in God, you may develop a God of the Gaps to avoid those questions so you can focus on what you're doing, which could be playing sports, acting, painting, performing surgery. To be skilled at these things doesn't necessarily need atheism, but it does need drive and focus. Something spirituality and God can provide. I think though, like you see in fields like science and medicine, it's harder to maintain that cognitive disonance. However if you didn't have to encounter it everyday, which many, many do not and will not, it's easier to write off and easier to stay in your corner. I'm not sure, sort of widespread brainwashing, and idea most find replusive, you could ever truly get enough perspectives to come together on all that information.

 

[redhawk23]

The funny thing is I'm not sure that science or atheism will ever fully take hold because of what I observe happening in reality. So it's a rather rational, sober reflection on the world. A bit like saying "well somebody has to pump my gas".

The thing is even in the age of technological superiority we all enjoy, I thought as aptly portrayed in Looper, it seems the "haves" and the "have nots" are a human legacy. We may, some of us, call ourselves middle class, but a Global study would tell you even our homeless are way better off than the rest of the world. You've always had something like that, to varying degrees, in society. In fact, arguably now the gap is far wider than ever. You still have people living in 0 AD like conditions, or worse. You definitely have many living in conditions similar to the 1500s. This may just be survival of the fittest exaggerated.

Most of the life expectancy changes deal with average. In other words less overall infant mortality. It's only recently that we've begun to extend humans to what's presumed to be their maximum natural life expectancy (115 years for a man, and about 125 for a woman).

I think for that reason it's always safe to assume 1) they'll always be a need for a subjugated work force and 2) they'll always be a class of undereducated/uneducated in any given society. I think frankly that's inevitable. Even with technology having humans replaced with robots, someone will have to be at the tail end of that money trail.

Politically also, since resources are finite and the cost associated with transporting them you also run into this again.

As for the religious aspect, not only is it appealing to those is desperate circumstances, I think their is some evolutionary advantage to it. Basically, if you can't hack it as a scientist, or your aptitudes don't lie in something that requires atheism or a belief in God, you may develop a God of the Gaps to avoid those questions so you can focus on what you're doing, which could be playing sports, acting, painting, performing surgery. To be skilled at these things doesn't necessarily need atheism, but it does need drive and focus. Something spirituality and God can provide. I think though, like you see in fields like science and medicine, it's harder to maintain that cognitive disonance. However if you didn't have to encounter it everyday, which many, many do not and will not, it's easier to write off and easier to stay in your corner. I'm not sure, sort of widespread brainwashing, and idea most find replusive, you could ever truly get enough perspectives to come together on all that information.

I understand where you're coming from with that but such statements greatly misunderstand the effects of chronic homelessness. Entire groups of people may have less wealth than our homeless but they also have cultural adaptations in place, knowledge of how to gain resources, family structures and the like that aid in their survival. The homeless in the first world often lack even the resource of basic community and interaction. Access to food may be more available here, but when people are surviving off food from gas stations their nutrition can be even worse than the extremely poor in other parts of the world. Add in the many maladies that lead people to be homeless to begin with and a fuller picture comes through.

 

[redhawk23]

[YT]BGcPjAH2iHQ&feature=youtu.be[/YT]

This commercial played during the Super Bowl in some markets.