Login |
New User
Books
COMING SEPT 09!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Battle for Europe's secular values
by British Humanist Association
Thanks to George Hyde for the notification.
Here is a message from The British Humanist Association:
http://www.humanism.org.uk
Help us defend Europe's secular values from a powerful new threat!
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with the help of the churches, is reviving the European constitution - with God included.
After a meeting with the Pope, Merkel said "we need a European identity in the form of a constitutional treaty and I think it should be connected to Christianity and God, as Christianity has forged Europe in a decisive way." She is planning a "Berlin Declaration", claiming that Europe is based on Christian values.
But the International Humanist and Ethical Union, European Humanist Federation and Catholics for Free Choice are fighting back with an alternative "Brussels Declaration".
And you can help.
David Pollock, BHA trustee and President of the European Humanist Federation, who is closely involved in this important initiative to defend Europe's secular values explains:
The Treaty of Rome - the foundation of the European Union - was signed 50 years ago on 25 March 1957. The anniversary is the background for a major confrontation between those who see Europe as essentially based on Christian values and those who support a secular Europe based on our shared values. The confrontation is encapsulated in plans for two very different Declarations proclaiming different values.
A Christian Europe?
The anniversary is stimulating concerted efforts by the Vatican and other churches in alliance with politicians, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who holds the current six-month presidency of the EU, to revive the project for a European constitution - with God included.
After a visit in August to Pope Benedict XVI Merkel said, "we need a European identity in the form of a constitutional treaty and I think it should be connected to Christianity and God, as Christianity has forged Europe in a decisive way."
She is planning a "Berlin Declaration", a statement of principles to underlie a new European constitution. EU heads of government have naturally been asked to contribute - but so have the churches: Germany's foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told an assembly of church leaders on 15 January: "Churches have a specific role in the European integration process. . . Churches [are] important partners . . .in discussions on common European values and the future of the European integration process." According to a press release from COMECE, the conference of European Roman Catholic bishops: "Steinmeier highlighted [the churches' role] in respect to the Berlin Declaration."
Incredibly, Steinmeier has warned MEPs not to get involved. According to the EU Observer he told the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee on 23 January that MEPs will not have any major role in the EU's constitution revival project. He warned them not to try to overshadow Berlin's efforts to revive the EU charter, saying "there is no point if the professionals in Europe are competing with one another for the welfare of Europe's citizens".
The churches - not least in the UK - have recently been attacking "secularism" at the least opportunity, defending their privileges as they lose members. They would welcome an EU constitution that embeds yet more privilege on top of the ready access to the Commission they already enjoy.
But a constitution that highlights Europe's supposed Judaeo-Christian heritage will only serve to exacerbate cultural differences. Here and elsewhere there are loud demands from religious minorities to codify cultural differences into family law - even to accept Shari'ah law for Muslims. (A recent survey by NOP showed that some 30% of British Muslims would prefer to live under Shari'ah Law. Among young Muslims the percentage was even higher.)
The fight back
Angela Merkel with her Berlin Declaration, must and will be answered by a counter-proclamation of the shared, secular values of the Enlightenment that we take for granted at our peril. Secularism, with its guarantee of state neutrality in this disputed area, is the only guarantee of freedom of religion or belief for all: privileging of one group necessarily means disadvantaging the rest.
A group under the leadership of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the European Humanist Federation, and the ultra-liberal Catholic group Catholics for a Free Choice have accordingly drafted a rival Secular Vision for Europe.
The centrepiece of the Vision is the "Brussels Declaration", a one-page restatement of our common values, the liberal values of individual freedom, democracy and the rule of law on which modern European civilisation is based. They are not the values of any single culture or tradition but are our shared values, the values that enable Europeans of all backgrounds, cultures and traditions to live together in peace and harmony.
The Brussels Declaration is the outcome of an unprecedented Europe-wide collaboration between humanists, Christians and Muslims, academics, politicians, writers, community leaders and both secular and religious non-governmental organisations.
It has already been endorsed by hundreds of European leaders - politicians, leading academics, commentators - of many different beliefs, and more are signing it every day, as I well know in my role as the co-ordinator for the UK of a team recruiting signatories. Several eminent academics have turned into recruiters themselves, e-mailing a dozen or more colleagues across the continent to recommend it.
Here it is:-
We need your support
You can read the document "A Secular Vision for Europe" at http://www.vision4europe.org - and I recommend you to do so (but note that signatories of the Brussels Declaration do not necessarily endorse the details of the Vision paper). It is an inspiring document, profoundly humanist but appealing to people of a wide range of beliefs so long as they share the liberal values of the Enlightenment and are willing to live together in a community with shared institutions.
The Brussels Declaration will be launched to the press in Brussels on 27 February at the European Parliament alongside a meeting of the All Party Group for Separation of Religion and Politics. The full current list of signatories will be published then, but meantime let me mention some of the warm expressions of support I have received.
Marina Warner, the novelist, critic and historian, wrote: "I am really happy to give this letter my support" and Philip Pullman echoed her: "I'm very happy to support this". Sir Bernard Crick called it "a very fine text", while Cambridge Professor of Philosophy (and member of the Humanist Philosophers' Group) Simon Blackburn signed up "with enthusiasm and gratitude. Exactly what is needed. I could think of quibbles but they are irrelevant, and the overall message is far more important. What a splendid initiative."
The breadth of appeal of the Declaration, which has won support from prominent Christians and Muslims, is evident from this message from Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, who is a Roman Catholic: "I share all your concerns about the road we could be travelling down. I have had serious concerns about the erosion of the secular space and as a human rights lawyer think it is important to assert values which can be shared by all and not claimed as Christian."
At present we are collecting support from well known public figures, but after the press launch of the Declaration, it will be open for 'signature' by all European citizens. I hope BHA members and supporters by the thousand will take the opportunity to send a message to EU leaders.
Meantime, please write to your MP and MEPs asking them to support the Declaration: send them the text above and refer them to the website http://www.vision4europe.org where the full background is set out an email address given for them to tell us of their support.
Here is a message from The British Humanist Association:
http://www.humanism.org.uk
Help us defend Europe's secular values from a powerful new threat!
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with the help of the churches, is reviving the European constitution - with God included.
After a meeting with the Pope, Merkel said "we need a European identity in the form of a constitutional treaty and I think it should be connected to Christianity and God, as Christianity has forged Europe in a decisive way." She is planning a "Berlin Declaration", claiming that Europe is based on Christian values.
But the International Humanist and Ethical Union, European Humanist Federation and Catholics for Free Choice are fighting back with an alternative "Brussels Declaration".
And you can help.
David Pollock, BHA trustee and President of the European Humanist Federation, who is closely involved in this important initiative to defend Europe's secular values explains:
The Treaty of Rome - the foundation of the European Union - was signed 50 years ago on 25 March 1957. The anniversary is the background for a major confrontation between those who see Europe as essentially based on Christian values and those who support a secular Europe based on our shared values. The confrontation is encapsulated in plans for two very different Declarations proclaiming different values.
A Christian Europe?
The anniversary is stimulating concerted efforts by the Vatican and other churches in alliance with politicians, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who holds the current six-month presidency of the EU, to revive the project for a European constitution - with God included.
After a visit in August to Pope Benedict XVI Merkel said, "we need a European identity in the form of a constitutional treaty and I think it should be connected to Christianity and God, as Christianity has forged Europe in a decisive way."
She is planning a "Berlin Declaration", a statement of principles to underlie a new European constitution. EU heads of government have naturally been asked to contribute - but so have the churches: Germany's foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told an assembly of church leaders on 15 January: "Churches have a specific role in the European integration process. . . Churches [are] important partners . . .in discussions on common European values and the future of the European integration process." According to a press release from COMECE, the conference of European Roman Catholic bishops: "Steinmeier highlighted [the churches' role] in respect to the Berlin Declaration."
Incredibly, Steinmeier has warned MEPs not to get involved. According to the EU Observer he told the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee on 23 January that MEPs will not have any major role in the EU's constitution revival project. He warned them not to try to overshadow Berlin's efforts to revive the EU charter, saying "there is no point if the professionals in Europe are competing with one another for the welfare of Europe's citizens".
The churches - not least in the UK - have recently been attacking "secularism" at the least opportunity, defending their privileges as they lose members. They would welcome an EU constitution that embeds yet more privilege on top of the ready access to the Commission they already enjoy.
But a constitution that highlights Europe's supposed Judaeo-Christian heritage will only serve to exacerbate cultural differences. Here and elsewhere there are loud demands from religious minorities to codify cultural differences into family law - even to accept Shari'ah law for Muslims. (A recent survey by NOP showed that some 30% of British Muslims would prefer to live under Shari'ah Law. Among young Muslims the percentage was even higher.)
The fight back
Angela Merkel with her Berlin Declaration, must and will be answered by a counter-proclamation of the shared, secular values of the Enlightenment that we take for granted at our peril. Secularism, with its guarantee of state neutrality in this disputed area, is the only guarantee of freedom of religion or belief for all: privileging of one group necessarily means disadvantaging the rest.
A group under the leadership of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the European Humanist Federation, and the ultra-liberal Catholic group Catholics for a Free Choice have accordingly drafted a rival Secular Vision for Europe.
The centrepiece of the Vision is the "Brussels Declaration", a one-page restatement of our common values, the liberal values of individual freedom, democracy and the rule of law on which modern European civilisation is based. They are not the values of any single culture or tradition but are our shared values, the values that enable Europeans of all backgrounds, cultures and traditions to live together in peace and harmony.
The Brussels Declaration is the outcome of an unprecedented Europe-wide collaboration between humanists, Christians and Muslims, academics, politicians, writers, community leaders and both secular and religious non-governmental organisations.
It has already been endorsed by hundreds of European leaders - politicians, leading academics, commentators - of many different beliefs, and more are signing it every day, as I well know in my role as the co-ordinator for the UK of a team recruiting signatories. Several eminent academics have turned into recruiters themselves, e-mailing a dozen or more colleagues across the continent to recommend it.
Here it is:-
The Brussels Declaration
We, the people of Europe, hereby affirm our common values. They are based not on a single culture or tradition but are founded in all of the cultures that make up modern Europe.
We affirm the worth, dignity and autonomy of every individual, and the right of everyone to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. We support democracy and human rights and aim at the fullest possible development of every human being.
We recognise our duty of care to all of humanity including future generations, and our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world.
We affirm the equality of men and women. All persons regardless of race, origin, religion or belief, language, gender, sexual orientation or ability must have equal treatment before the law.
We affirm the right of everyone to adopt and follow a religion or belief of their choosing. But the beliefs of any group may not be used to limit the rights of others.
We hold that the state must remain neutral in matters of religion and belief, favouring none and discriminating against none.
We hold that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. We seek to create a fair society based on reason and compassion, in which every citizen is enabled to play their full part.
We uphold both tolerance and freedom of expression.
We affirm the right of everyone to open and comprehensive education.
We reject intimidation, violence and incitement to violence in the furtherance of disputes, and hold that conflicts must be resolved through negotiation and by legal means.
We uphold freedom of inquiry in every sphere of human life, and the application of science in the service of human welfare. We seek to use science creatively, not destructively.
We uphold artistic freedom, value creativity and imagination, and recognise the transforming power of art. We affirm the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.
Made this 25th day of March 2007, being the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the foundation of the European Union.
We need your support
You can read the document "A Secular Vision for Europe" at http://www.vision4europe.org - and I recommend you to do so (but note that signatories of the Brussels Declaration do not necessarily endorse the details of the Vision paper). It is an inspiring document, profoundly humanist but appealing to people of a wide range of beliefs so long as they share the liberal values of the Enlightenment and are willing to live together in a community with shared institutions.
The Brussels Declaration will be launched to the press in Brussels on 27 February at the European Parliament alongside a meeting of the All Party Group for Separation of Religion and Politics. The full current list of signatories will be published then, but meantime let me mention some of the warm expressions of support I have received.
Marina Warner, the novelist, critic and historian, wrote: "I am really happy to give this letter my support" and Philip Pullman echoed her: "I'm very happy to support this". Sir Bernard Crick called it "a very fine text", while Cambridge Professor of Philosophy (and member of the Humanist Philosophers' Group) Simon Blackburn signed up "with enthusiasm and gratitude. Exactly what is needed. I could think of quibbles but they are irrelevant, and the overall message is far more important. What a splendid initiative."
The breadth of appeal of the Declaration, which has won support from prominent Christians and Muslims, is evident from this message from Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, who is a Roman Catholic: "I share all your concerns about the road we could be travelling down. I have had serious concerns about the erosion of the secular space and as a human rights lawyer think it is important to assert values which can be shared by all and not claimed as Christian."
At present we are collecting support from well known public figures, but after the press launch of the Declaration, it will be open for 'signature' by all European citizens. I hope BHA members and supporters by the thousand will take the opportunity to send a message to EU leaders.
Meantime, please write to your MP and MEPs asking them to support the Declaration: send them the text above and refer them to the website http://www.vision4europe.org where the full background is set out an email address given for them to tell us of their support.
Comments 1 - 50 of 72 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #22501 by VanYoungman on February 19, 2007 at 11:48 am
This Merkel-Pope thing has a ring of anti-semitism in it.
Other Comments by VanYoungman
3. Comment #22505 by the great teapot on February 19, 2007 at 3:00 pm
A european constitution?I have looked on the map but I can't see this country europe anywhere.It reminds me of something else that she wants to force on us.
Other Comments by the great teapot
4. Comment #22507 by The author on February 19, 2007 at 12:17 pm
"This Merkel-Pope thing has a ring of anti-semitism in it."
What an utter nonsense! Could you stop that Germans-are-antisemites crap? Merkel is a conservative christian, but compared to your born-again-version this is nothing!
"I have looked on the map but I can't see this country europe anywhere."
That's because it is not a country, but includes several countries. Do you want so say something with that comment or is it a mere provocation?
So, ok, I'm a European, even a German, and I hope you will stop your nonsensical, arrogant comments and take the issue serious. We got a bogus-chancellor on the lose and I sure as hell haven't voted for her. German Humanists will also try to stop her and yes, we exist. If you want to start a whose-country-is-more-secular-debate: Don't do it. I'm not so sure that you will win.
Other Comments by The author
5. Comment #22508 by Riley on February 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm
The Author replies to The Great Teapot's comments before He even makes them !!! trippyOther Comments by Riley
6. Comment #22509 by The author on February 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm
"The Author replies to The Great Teapot's comments before He even makes them!"There we see it: The only people with supernatural abilities do not believe in them.
Other Comments by The author
7. Comment #22512 by the great teapot on February 19, 2007 at 12:46 pm
@ The authorI believe I've said it. Not provocative just a statement of fact. Europe is another tier of government that this country,England, does not need. Not arrogance just my preference.
Other Comments by the great teapot
8. Comment #22514 by Roy_H on February 19, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The Guys at B3TA love our Richard ( But they hate Gillian McKeith)http://www.b3ta.com/board/6874254
Other Comments by Roy_H
9. Comment #22516 by Riley on February 19, 2007 at 12:57 pm
In 1796-1797, the United States signed into law the Treaty of Tripoli, where in Article 11 it was written:"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…"
The treaty was written during the administration of George Washington (first president), signed by President John Adams (second president), and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate.
And yet, 200+ years later, we still have shameless undersexed faith-heads feeling the need to declare that the U.S. is a "Christian nation"
So while I think this declaration is wonderful and inspiring and gives me a lot of hope that at least if things here do not get better, I may have someplace else to flee for safety (or sanity) sake ... it doesn't mean beans unless there are instutitions built around that declaration to vigilently defend its principles.
---
Other Comments by Riley
10. Comment #22529 by Sancus on February 19, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I hope that children are included in the definition of "human" and "individual."Other Comments by Sancus
11. Comment #22535 by Frostbit on February 19, 2007 at 2:09 pm
An increased Christian Europe to go with an already prevalent and growing Muslin Europe. This will be interesting.On the bright side the next Crusade will save a ton on travel expenses and logistics for not having to voyage so far South East.Other Comments by Frostbit
12. Comment #22536 by couldbethelasttime on February 19, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Anyone happen to know the state of the UK regarding state religion?Other Comments by couldbethelasttime
13. Comment #22540 by mummymonkey on February 19, 2007 at 5:25 pm
"We affirm the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment"But not as important as football, cricket and going down the pub for a pint with me mates.
Other Comments by mummymonkey
14. Comment #22543 by captain underpants on February 19, 2007 at 2:37 pm
The Author: I'm not German but I live there (Mönchengladbach). Do you have any info about atheist/humanist organisations in Germany? Other Comments by captain underpants
15. Comment #22544 by atheisticism on February 19, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Does New Zealand need electricians? just wondering...Other Comments by atheisticism
16. Comment #22548 by the great teapot on February 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Religion in the UK is an institution a little like cricket and rugby. Nearly no-one participates but when asked or when a special occasion occurs millions of people claim allegiance like sheep. This is particularly annoying when the Boro - Bolton football match is on sky TV and the otherwise empty pubs are full of people watching Engerland play Australia/New Zealand/France eventhough they barely understand the rules of the game they are pretending to watch. C of E my arse. I am pleased to say that in England, although religion is a state protected species and an awful lot of people claim they are "Church of England", professing to have actual faith is a bit like admitting to being soft in the head.(unless you're the latest Primeminster- it doesn't lose votes but it may gain a few)In reply to comment 15- couldbethelast.
Note the above is my intepretation of the actual situation in the UK.The church goers may disagree but given their track record on assessing reality who do you believe?
Other Comments by the great teapot
17. Comment #22561 by MIND_REBEL on February 19, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Central Europe is determined to usher in the dark ages once again. Disgusting, but not suprising given their history. Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
18. Comment #22566 by LookToWindward on February 19, 2007 at 3:48 pm
If there's one thing that unifies Europe it is the wholesale rejection of religion in favour of secular states based on Enlightenment principles. They should stick that in Constitution.Other Comments by LookToWindward
19. Comment #22568 by LookToWindward on February 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Hey teapot, since you're against cooperation, why don't we divide everything up into ever smaller pieces until every individual is their own state. Or did the anarchists already invent that one?Or, hey, how about we just have a graded hierarchy of government over ever increasing geographic areas, each responsible only for those things common to everyone within the boundaries? Oh wait...that's what we have...
Other Comments by LookToWindward
20. Comment #22573 by the great teapot on February 19, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Mind RebelIf you are refering to Nazism their history is a shared Human History. All humans must be vigilant that they are not ruled or fooled by thugs. Also individuals are no more responsible for the actions of their forefathers than we are for the actions of our grand children. If anyone of us lived in Germany at the time could we be sure we would have objected to Nazism let alone acted alone against it.
Remember the allies were not at war with National socialism, or antisemmitism they were only at war with a foreign power who had invaded another countries territory. Is there a country in the world that has not done that.
There but for the grace of God go I.
Other Comments by the great teapot
21. Comment #22577 by BaronOchs on February 19, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Comment #22536 by couldbethelasttime
"Anyone happen to know the state of the UK regarding state religion?"
England (not Wales/Scotland/N.Ireland!) of course has the established Church of England, which receives the honour of 27 bishops in the House of Lords.
State schools are still obliged to provide a religious assembly every day and faith schools are still prominent, some of which nevertheless only receive 10% of funds from a church.
I got the message here that "only God can save the European Constitution"...
Writing christianity into the constitution would be problematic not least for the proposed entry of Turkey into the union. In the days when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger the Pope expressed strong oppisition to Turkey's entry on the grounds that it is:
"Muslim by heritage and staunchly secularist by its state constitution"
The latter could be said about france. Does the fact that geographically and historically Turkey is not European mean it shouldn't be admitted to the EU? I don't think so personally. A constitution should not define Europe in christian terms. Christianity is connected to "Europe" in the historical sense, but not in the EU sense.
The fact is that the constitution the french shot down might have been secular but it was also an awful piece of drivel. A fight over this might just mean we'll end up with a decent attempt at a constitution next time round?
Other Comments by BaronOchs
22. Comment #22581 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 19, 2007 at 7:53 pm
The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me. You attack religion, but then borrow its ideals and claim them for your own. The problem is that when you try to base human worth and equality on what boils down to a purely subjective system you are left with little more than an arbitrary declaration. It is not even a rationally justified claim."We affirm the worth, dignity and autonomy of every individual, and the right of everyone to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others."
Whenever I see the concept of "worth" being applied to humans within the framework of secular humanism it makes my brain wince. Worth is a meaningless concept unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth. A well-cut diamond is worth ten thousand dollars only because we say it is worth that much. A pure-bred grey-hound is worth nine hundred dollars only because we say it is. Diamonds do not give themselves their own worth; they are inanimate objects incapable of thinking or logic. Likewise, dogs cannot ascribe their own value to themselves because that would contradict the very nature of value.
So my question is, what makes anyone think humans are any different? Are we valuable simply because we say we are? Consider this statement: "I have value because I say I have value. My opinion matters because I am valuable". Any educated person can quickly identify that as circular reasoning.
Now, what if I say that you are worthless? Well, then you may be able to argue that most of the world does not share my opinion. But what if it did? For many different people this has unfortunately been the case. History attests to the fact that when we ascribe human worth, the results are not pretty. Slavery, genocide, murder: all of these atrocities arise because the perpetrator's concept of "worth" is skewed. When there exists nothing to ascribe value, it becomes an arbitrary and meaningless concept, and I would submit that all atheists strike it from their vocabulary in the name of intellectual honesty.
"We affirm the right of everyone to open and comprehensive education."
Forgive me for sounding snoody, but this one just makes me laugh. If by "comprehensive education" they mean forcing secular humanist dogma down children's throats, then they seriously need to look up the word "comprehensive". If by "education" they mean stifling any inquiry whatsoever into a logically unjustified claim being touted as science, then they also need to look up the word "education".
"We uphold freedom of inquiry in every sphere of human life, and the application of science in the service of human welfare. We seek to use science creatively, not destructively."
I could point out a number of flaws here, but I would like to concentrate on the usage of the word "science". I've noticed that atheists really like to muddy the waters by using the word "science" interchangeably in the context of past events and present, repeatable events, therefore clouding the distinction between historical science and empirical science. This is also the fallacy of equivocation. Atheists like Dawkins tend to talk about the science that gave us the cellular phone and helped us discover the laws of thermodynamics, and then talk about microbe-to-man evolution in the same context, as if it somehow carried the same amount of certainty and authority inherent within empirical science. While this statement may not directly state the relationship, it is certainly implied in the language used.
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
23. Comment #22585 by the great teapot on February 19, 2007 at 5:14 pm
@ look to windwardAnd supposing windy your national boundary gets swamped by a larger area containing predominantley religious fundamentalists who can then impose their will on you. How can you pick and choose you common areas when no one asks you which unions you want to be party to and that choice is not constantly under revision. Constitutions with religion in them or not aren't worth the paper there written on. The mob rules , might is right.
Other Comments by the great teapot
24. Comment #22587 by the great teapot on February 19, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Bizzaro I had a comprehensive school education are you saying i am thick. Is that what you're saying?Why do you refer to all atheists as you?
I have never said any of the above or below or wherever this post has landed in relation to yours.
Other Comments by the great teapot
25. Comment #22594 by Robert Maynard on February 19, 2007 at 6:32 pm
"Worth is a meaningless concept unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth."I see.. but this infinite regression of worth-ascribers doesn't apply to God? He can, necessarily, prescribe his own (infinite) worth, but we can't? Is he, to paraphrase Aquinas, "the unworthed worther"? :P
It's one thing to use circular reasoning, it's entirely another to simply cheat.
You make a very valid point about worth, Bizarro Dawkins, but it quickly loses its descriptive power when you leave the realm of inanimate objects, and unintelligent entities. If dogs had as advanced a concept of self as we do, I think it's pretty bloody obvious they would consider themselves "worth" more than something that didn't.
Human "worth" is only a quantification in the sense that we have something most other things don't - a mind advanced enough to, for example, quantify worth (beyond, say, subconscious cost/benefit routines). :P
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
26. Comment #22596 by Robert Maynard on February 19, 2007 at 6:48 pm
..hm, my comment came up before the comment I'm responding to - I think there's a problem with the sites clock references? :| Other Comments by Robert Maynard
27. Comment #22599 by MouthAlmighty on February 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm
The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me. You attack religion, but then borrow its ideals and claim them for your own.
Care to elaborate on this? Or are you simply saying that non-theists shouldn't talk about moral concepts without relying on some holy script for guidance and authority?
The problem is that when you try to base human worth and equality on what boils down to a purely subjective system you are left with little more than an arbitrary declaration. It is not even a rationally justified claim.
What "purely subjective system" are you referring to? The declaration is an attempt to codify commonly held values, values which should be observed in the stewardship of the union. Most importantly, it's an acknowledgement that these values are universal and need not come with an ecclesiastical stamp of approval.
Worth is a meaningless concept unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth.
The very notion that you can conceive of people as worthless save for the blessing of your "higher entity" is frankly obscene. To ascribe worth per se is acknowledge fundamental worth and declare that such should not be discounted. To ascribe price - which is what you are trying to do - is an entirely different matter.
So my question is, what makes anyone think humans are any different? Are we valuable simply because we say we are?
Err... that's kinda the point of a declaration?
Consider this statement: "I have value because I say I have value. My opinion matters because I am valuable". Any educated person can quickly identify that as circular reasoning.
Whereas saying, "I have value because it says so in the bible. My opinion matters because I'm a Christian" escapes the circularity merely by virtue of appealing to the higher authority? Fine, lets just make all of Europe Christian and we're sorted!
Forgive me for sounding snoody, but this one just makes me laugh. If by "comprehensive education" they mean forcing secular humanist dogma down children's throats, then they seriously need to look up the word "comprehensive". If by "education" they mean stifling any inquiry whatsoever into a logically unjustified claim being touted as science, then they also need to look up the word "education".
Or maybe they just mean an education which is comprehensive. One in which children can learn about all religions (is that "comprehensive" enough?), their customs an practices, their symbols and rituals, their beliefs, requirements and prohibitions, and their truth claims... instead of being fed one particular 'truth' and held ignorant of all other propositions. See? No need to force "secular humanist dogma" on them. As for 'logically unjistified claims as science' care to nominate one?
Atheists like Dawkins tend to talk about the science that gave us the cellular phone and helped us discover the laws of thermodynamics, and then talk about microbe-to-man evolution in the same context, as if it somehow carried the same amount of certainty and authority inherent within empirical science.
That's all very interesting - you'll find many of us here have one or two minor 'niggles' about how theists use language around here - but what does that have to do with...
"We uphold freedom of inquiry in every sphere of human life, and the application of science in the service of human welfare. We seek to use science creatively, not destructively."
What bothers me most is the decidely low opinion you have of human beings. The declaration isn't perfect, but the Enlightenment values it espouses are as fundamental and universal as values can be. As such, they do not bare the stain of a "higher entity" because no such entity is required for such values to exist (they even support you right and freedom to dogmatically believe otherwise) and we do not require the permission of such an entity to discover, promote and celerbrate them. They celebrate the spectacular capacity for humans to question, investigate, and create. They are not the product of iron age ignorance kept alive for centuries by narrow minded bigots fearful of the power of intellectual liberty.
Edit: Bugger! The post order is wacky dude!
Other Comments by MouthAlmighty
28. Comment #22601 by Janus on February 19, 2007 at 7:51 pm
EDIT: Ummm, yeah, the post order is, indeed, wacky.The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me. You attack religion, but then borrow its ideals and claim them for your own.
The tendency of Christians to claim ideals which are found nowhere in the Bible as their own is much more astonishing, and hypocritical.
Worth is a meaningless concept unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth. A well-cut diamond is worth ten thousand dollars only because we say it is worth that much. A pure-bred grey-hound is worth nine hundred dollars only because we say it is. Diamonds do not give themselves their own worth; they are inanimate objects incapable of thinking or logic. Likewise, dogs cannot ascribe their own value to themselves because that would contradict the very nature of value.
You arbitrarily define worth as "meaningless unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth", which is clearly begging the question, and you think your argument is sound?
All it takes for something to have worth is for a conscious intelligent entity to believe it has worth. Why would that entity need to be "higher" to pass judgement on another entity? And what does "higher" mean, anyway? You imply that a dog is higher than a diamond, and a human is higher than a dog. Does "higher" mean more intelligent, then? Would someone like Bertrand Russel (who had an estimated IQ of 180) have the right to judge a mentally retarded person's worth, while a similarly retarded person wouldn't have that right?
It doesn't really matter, anyway. "Worth" is an entirely subjective concept; that is, it only exists in an intelligent entity's mind. Why would God's idea of my worth be better than my own? Because he's much more intelligent than me? Because he's omnipotent? Why would those things matter? A subjective judgement can't be "better" than another one, precisely because it's subjective.
Dogs can't ascribe their own value to themselves because (as far as we know), they can't ascribe value to anything, because they're not intelligent enough. Humans are intelligent enough to ascribe value, however.
Worth is subjective no matter who's doing the ascribing, be it God or us 'lowly' humans. And even if it wasn't, since none of us know anything about God, not even if it exists, there is no way for us to know what God thinks has worth, assuming God thinks _anything_ has worth.
Now, what if I say that you are worthless? Well, then you may be able to argue that most of the world does not share my opinion. But what if it did?
That a concept is subjective doesn't mean it's meaningless. In my mind, intelligent life has worth. Some people agree with me; that means I can have a discussion with them because we have this belief in common. Other people disagree; that means there can be no discussion about this topic and related ones. The Brussels Declaration has a good chance of being well received because many people do in fact share the subjective beliefs written in it. I don't see what the problem is.
Slavery, genocide, murder: all of these atrocities arise because the perpetrator's concept of "worth" is skewed.
Are you, presumably a religious person, actually claiming that slavery, genocide, and murder arose because of moral subjectivism?
Open a history book sometime.
But anyway, how do you know that a person's concept of worth is "skewed"? Because it's not what's written in your favorite holy book? Ignoring the fact that the Bible endorses slavery, how would you convince someone with a skewed concept of worth that his concept is skewed? Because, you know, one nice characteristic of objective reality is that consensus can be reached about its nature. Anyone who knows anything about biology will admit that all living beings are either cells, or composed of cells. Someone who doubts that can be convinced by showing her the evidence. What evidence can you show us to demonstrate that, for example, homosexuality is a sin?
Forgive me for sounding snoody, but this one just makes me laugh. If by "comprehensive education" they mean forcing secular humanist dogma down children's throats, then they seriously need to look up the word "comprehensive". If by "education" they mean stifling any inquiry whatsoever into a logically unjustified claim being touted as science, then they also need to look up the word "education".
I would guess that by "education" they mean teaching the facts, and the methods by which one can discover more facts. I think most secular humanists would oppose the teaching of morality (of the humanist kind or otherwise) in schools, except perhaps for the kind of morality which is an essential part of any modern democracy: Freedom, human rights, the golden rule, etc.
I don't know what you mean by "a logically unjustified claim being touted as science". Secular humanists are certainly opposed to "stifling inquiry". We are also opposed to the promotion of pseudo-science, if that's what you mean.
I could point out a number of flaws here, but I would like to concentrate on the usage of the word "science". I've noticed that atheists really like to muddy the waters by using the word "science" interchangeably in the context of past events and present, repeatable events, therefore clouding the distinction between historical science and empirical science. This is also the fallacy of equivocation. Atheists like Dawkins tend to talk about the science that gave us the cellular phone and helped us discover the laws of thermodynamics, and then talk about microbe-to-man evolution in the same context, as if it somehow carried the same amount of certainty and authority inherent within empirical science.
The distinction is irrelevant in this context. What is determined to be true in a historical science is determined empirically. The genetic codes of all living species are available to us right here, right now, and can be examined and experimented with empirically. The same goes for fossils. All of the experiments that could have falsified evolution (and the Big Bang, and various other things) are just as repeatable as those that could have falsified quantum theory.
From these experiments we can draw conclusions about what happened in the past; that doesn't make them any less empirical.
Other Comments by Janus
29. Comment #22607 by Russell Blackford on February 19, 2007 at 9:58 pm
The Brussels version is a bit too wordy and specific for my liking, as well as kind of high falutin'. I subscribe to most of those values, but in most case only with qualifications about how I'd interrpet them, and I don't expect everyone else to subscribe to them.The point is, we are all different but we have to get along in human societies. We have to live side by side, showing concern about each other's welfare, compassion for each others' sufferings, respect for each other's decisions - and that's about it. Once you start to elaborate in more detail, you'll start putting in things that are genuinely contestable. Leave the more detailed policies to practical politics, and lay off the sonorous rhetoric.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
30. Comment #22611 by MihaiC on February 19, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Worth is a meaningless concept unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth.
Hehe, so from that perspective God's worth is what? undefined?
Other Comments by MihaiC
31. Comment #22612 by stpetes on February 20, 2007 at 2:07 am
It sounds good but in actual fact is really meaningless and illogical rhetoric similar to George Orwell's Newspeak. A couple of examples -"We, the people of Europe, hereby affirm our common values. They are based not on a single culture or tradition but are founded in all of the cultures that make up modern Europe."
Really? So the Islamic culture that demands the subjugation of women is part of our common values. And are the humanist society really saying that Calvinism and Catholocism (fairly important parts of European history) are part of the common values that Europe wants to uphold. I don't think so. It's meaningless drivel.
"We affirm the equality of men and women. All persons regardless of race, origin, religion or belief, language, gender, sexual orientation or ability must have equal treatment before the law."
Again this is meaningless. If I believe that black people are inferior should I have equal treatment? If I think my religion allows me to beat up my wife should I have equal treatment? And if my sexual orientation is paedophilia or bestiality should I have equal treatment? Again it is high sounding but meaningless.
"We affirm the right of everyone to adopt and follow a religion or belief of their choosing. But the beliefs of any group may not be used to limit the rights of others."
Same again. This is practically impossible. This belief itself is a limit to the rights of others.
"We hold that the state must remain neutral in matters of religion and belief, favouring none and discriminating against none."
So if my religion teaches that all Jews are vermin who should be exterminated then the State should remain neutral?
"We uphold both tolerance and freedom of expression."
Without limits? Including racism?
"We affirm the right of everyone to open and comprehensive education."
But meanwhile we will continue to send our children to expensive private education which we can afford, whilst leaving the poor with the dregs.
"We reject intimidation, violence and incitement to violence in the furtherance of disputes, and hold that conflicts must be resolved through negotiation and by legal means."
Excellent. Although again there is an inherent contradiction. One assumes that this new Europe will have an army and a police force.
"We uphold freedom of inquiry in every sphere of human life, and the application of science in the service of human welfare. We seek to use science creatively, not destructively."
Good. So scientists will be banned from working in the arms race or creating new biological weapons and of course there will be no more destruction of humans in the womb!
The whole thing is pompous self contradictory and impractical nonsense. Of course to those who like soundbites and the feel of such nice words it will appeal. But it is meaningless and irrelevant to real life.
Other Comments by stpetes
32. Comment #22613 by Janus on February 19, 2007 at 11:23 pm
stpetes,There is nothing "self-contradictory" about the declaration if you take the entire thing into account, instead of reading it one sentence at a time while ignoring the rest. For example, if you molest children you obviously shouldn't have "equal treatment" because you're a criminal. To interpret the equal treatment part of the declaration otherwise is just silly.
As for your repeated objections of "What about racism?" and "What about anti-semitism?" Um, yes, that's what freedom of speech and belief is about. Until a racist discriminates or resorts to violence, of course he should be allowed to have his beliefs and to express them. I'm aware that many European countries currently prohibit "hate speech", and I think that does contradict freedom of speech.
Other Comments by Janus
33. Comment #22614 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 20, 2007 at 2:34 am
"Care to elaborate on this?"No, not really. This conclusion is the only rational inference one can derive from atheism. You seem like a rather intelligent person, so I don't think you need some theist ninny like myself to explain the logical implications of your own faith.
"The declaration is an attempt to codify commonly held values, values which should be observed in the stewardship of the union."
Please, for consistency's sake, don't use the word "should". That word means nothing within the context of secular humanism. There is only "will". I will do what I will do. What if I believe that these values you speak of should not be observed, but instead that I should exterminate all the Jews in the world? Your version of "should" is not many other's version of "should". If you say to a terrorist "don't blow up that building", and he asks "why not?", what can you say? That he shouldn't because you and a few other people said he shouldn't? That's a logically unjustifiable claim. Shouldn't, according to the implications of the atheist paradigm, is therefore whatever I make it.
"The very notion that you can conceive of people as worthless save for the blessing of your "higher entity" is frankly obscene."
Why is it obscene?
"Err... that's kinda the point of a declaration?"
So then you're saying that the point of the declaration is to use shoddy, circular logic to try to justify a belief in human worth?
""I have value because it says so in the bible. My opinion matters because I'm a Christian""
Once again, you seem like an intelligent person, so I don't think I need to point out the obvious flaw here. But, for the sake of the others, well, it's a strawman! If God says I have value, I have value. God says I have value, therefore, I have value. My justification has little to do with my opinion; it has everything to do with God's. Not to mention, my justification doesn't rely on circular reasoning…
"Or maybe they just mean an education which is comprehensive."
No arguments here.
"No need to force "secular humanist dogma" on them."
Not quite. While atheists claim that education should consist of information on all religions, they tacitly deny the existence of God (or any supernatural creator) by advocating purely a purely naturalistic causation for the Universe, life, and the diversity of life. As long as the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and microbe-to-man evolution are presented as fact in science classes, then there will always exist a strong prevalence of secular humanism in public education, for this supposed information renders the existence a supernatural creator moot.
"As for 'logically unjistified claims as science' care to nominate one?"
Guess.
"What bothers me most is the decidely low opinion you have of human beings."
Once again, I'm seeing a fairly obvious strawman. I do not have a low opinion of human beings. In fact, my opinion of human beings is quite superior to yours, given the fact that I can rationally justify mine.
"As such, they do not bare the stain of a "higher entity" because no such entity is required for such values to exist…"
You've still failed to address one of my central points. Does a diamond have value because it says it does?
-------------------------------------------------
"The tendency of Christians to claim ideals which are found nowhere in the Bible as their own is much more astonishing, and hypocritical."
Oh, do tell.
"Why would that entity need to be "higher" to pass judgement on another entity?"
This depends on what sense "value" is being used in. Granted, a dog can "value" its master because of his provisions of food and affection, but the dog does not ascribe the intrinsic value of the master. In order for something to have this intrinsic value, there must exist something else to provide value. Gold isn't valuable in and of itself; we only say it's valuable because we like the way it looks, and it's fairly rare. People cannot simply give themselves value because this would denigrate the very concept to mean little more than an arbitrary definition based on nothing but what I say. What if I say that Jews are not valuable? Hitler did.
Therefore you have still failed to demonstrate how people giving themselves their own value is not unjustified, circular reasoning.
"And what does "higher" mean, anyway?"
In the sense I was using it, "higher" simply implies that the provider of the value is able to accurately determine the value of what is being considered. God understands more of the human condition than we do, therefore it is appropriate that he provide our value. Likewise, we understand gold better than it understands itself, therefore we are fit to ascribe its value. Of course, in the case of gold, it can't even know what to think about itself because it is not a sentient being, but my argument still applies.
""Worth" is an entirely subjective concept; that is, it only exists in an intelligent entity's mind."
Fine. I am an intelligent entity, and I say that Jews are worthless and should be killed so we can have their resources. Prove me wrong.
"Why would God's idea of my worth be better than my own?"
He is a higher entity by which to appeal when trying to justify your own worth, because as we've seen, we cannot logically ascribe our own value without utilizing circular reasoning.
"Worth is subjective…"
I totally agree, but still this raises serious questions. If value is totally subjective (which it is in a godless world), then people like Hitler can rationally justify their actions and you have no logical basis on which to condemn them. Atheistic philosophy is therefore highly impractical.
"That a concept is subjective doesn't mean it's meaningless."
What if I say it does? What reason can you present me with to believe otherwise?
"In my mind, intelligent life has worth."
This is a classic example of a fallacy known as "stealing the concept". In this statement, worth, an objective concept, is being based on a subjective framework, therefore causing a contradiction to arise within the claim. It's like saying "all property is theft". The concept of theft would not be possible without acknowledging the concept of property; therefore the claim is rendered logically obsolete.
"I don't see what the problem is."
What if the majority stood against the freedoms mentioned in the Brussels declaration? What if the majority saw fit to kill Atheists? Then you could say nothing against it. If you believe what ought to be ought to be simply because the majority says it ought to be, I would encourage much deeper thought and further inquiry into the matter.
"Are you, presumably a religious person, actually claiming that slavery, genocide, and murder arose because of moral subjectivism? Open a history book sometime."
Now you are committing the fallacy of attacking the ideal rather than those claiming to represent that ideal. The perpetrators of such atrocities have in the past used ideals such as Christianity in order to justify their actions, but it would be a serious miscalculation to attribute their actions to the ideal itself. Also, when people try to justify evil actions with the Bible for example, they must do a fair amount of word twisting and verse de-contextualization. This in no way implicates the Bible in their crimes however. Remember that horrible things have also been done in the name of Atheism, but I refuse to fall into the logical trap of attacking Atheism on these premises.
Now that is not to say that the implications of Atheism don't make it easier to justify such actions. If Atheism is true, then it logically follows that there is no objective moral standard, no objective human worth, etc., therefore it is not too hard to justify evil actions. If Hitler saw no worth in the Jews, then it logically follows that he had the right to kill them. Notice that I am not claiming Atheism to be the direct cause of such conduct, but it can provide a rational justification for it without too much manipulation or word-twisting.
"Because, you know, one nice characteristic of objective reality is that consensus can be reached about its nature."
Ok, but that is not the only characteristic. Objective reality also necessitates evidence, reason, and rationality in order to be believed as reality. Consensus by itself however yields little but blind dogma.
"The distinction is irrelevant in this context. What is determined to be true in a historical science is determined empirically."
You seriously need to re-evaluate your understanding of science. Historical science carries nowhere near the same level of certainty found in empirical science. I don't even think Dawkins would disagree with me on this. Empirical science deals with that which can be repeated and observed whereas historical science involves past events that cannot be repeated. We can infer logical conclusions from the existing evidence of a certain occurrence, but we can by no means prove it in the scientific sense. It is the difference between witnessing a crime and solving a crime after the fact using forensic evidence. Whereas we can infer the best logical information from the data, we cannot be sure that the crime happened as we believe it did.
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
34. Comment #22615 by stephenray on February 20, 2007 at 3:17 am
This bizarro dawkins is a hoot, ain't he? No wonder woo-woos are having such problem with atheism when they have such difficulty thinking straight. I have this picture of him having to lie down after his posts due to the strain of thinking at this level.I have two problems with Merkel's proposed declaration. First, the statement that she makes shows that she has absolutely no grasp of history. In one sentence she takes your breath away with her total ignorance of the contributions of both Islam and especially Judaism to the development of Europe.
Second, I'd rather have a state (superstate?) religion with a modest amount of religious interference with state business (like, say, the UK) than a declared secularism with an unbelievable amount of religious interference with state business (like the USA). But best of all I'd like a secular state with no religious interference with state business.
Other Comments by stephenray
35. Comment #22619 by Robert Maynard on February 20, 2007 at 1:58 am
"You've still failed to address one of my central points. Does a diamond have value because it says it does?"You've failed to address my comment, which addresses why things with complex minds are able to intrinsically define their experience as more deserving of preservation (worth) than inanimate objects they don't rely on, like ..diamonds? And if one of your central points involves a talking diamond, this dialogue has some problems..
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
36. Comment #22620 by Logicel on February 20, 2007 at 5:07 am
stephenray, Yes, believers in the supernatural who think they are confronting the 'irrational and illogical faith' of non-theists by dismally failing in their attempt to apply the same non-theist approach and tools which the non-theists themselves use so remarkably well to consistently dismantle the nonsense of supernatural beliefs are a hoot! I always get a picture of a car with its wheels helplessly spinning in mud, unable to move in any direction.In their misguided attempts to use our critical thinking tools to dismantle what they think is our belief system, they unwittingly succeed in adding to our already successful body of work in dismantling their own beliefs!
Other Comments by Logicel
37. Comment #22625 by Myryama on February 20, 2007 at 3:10 am
Bizarro wrote:"Fine. I am an intelligent entity, and I say that Jews are worthless and should be killed so we can have their resources. Prove me wrong."
This is a great example of the problem with religion. Even assuming that Bizarro was trolling, the fact that a person's religion can be used to label them so that they can be singled out for attack is, in my opinion, an indicator of the divisive and unpleasant nature of our religious "communities".
Oh, and for what it is worth, the implicit assumption that "atheist faith" is somehow equivalent to religious faith is repugnant; I don't blindly follow my atheism, or force others to do the same, and I would certainly need to hear some pretty good arguments before I took moral guidance from a poorly edited, inconsistent and unpleasant magic book.
Other Comments by Myryama
38. Comment #22632 by Robert Maynard on February 20, 2007 at 3:58 am
Bizarro's (presumably hypothetical) challenge: "Fine. I am an intelligent entity, and I say that Jews are worthless and should be killed so we can have their resources. Prove me wrong."One of the most basic precepts of documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or this document is that all individual humans are equal in worth, and deserve to develop to their full potential.
In order for your value judgement to make any sense, you'd need to demonstrate that Jews differ in important and negative ways from normative standards in humans.
How? Well, you could try to demonstrate that Jewish people have fundamental physiological or psychological differences, and demonstrate these to be inferior differences. You'd need to demonstrate that they don't have the same capacities for physical and mental suffering as normal humans, that their mind is childishly primitive compared to other humans, to the degree that we could reasonably suppose their experience of consciousness is radically diminished in comparison to us, and so killing them would be as forgivable as whaling or hunting deer (which is pretty unethical as it is).
But, that simply isn't the case, so you would be wrong to say that.. and probably a racist to boot! :D
Returning to this accusation of circular reasoning you keep throwing out, I wonder if you find the anthropic principle to be circular reasoning, which can basically be expressed like so - "Our environment is well suited to our survival because if it wasn't then we wouldn't be able to observe it, because we would never have evolved - therefore it is not a miracle that our environment is so nice, but a matter of practical necessity."
To make the analogue more apparent, I rephrase and repeat how human worth is justified in a godless world -
"Humans are equal in worth because we possess a mind complex enough to recognise the rarity and beauty of our experiential faculties, in ourselves and each other - if we didn't, then we wouldn't be able to assert this worth, nor recognise it in our fellow man - therefore, we are important, and all of us are equally so."
I simply don't understand why you keep asserting that because there is no "objective" (bizarro speak for "externally endowed") standard of morality, that agreements on ethics can't possibly be reached based on rational principles of moral philosophy and science.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
39. Comment #22638 by Donald on February 20, 2007 at 4:45 am
Bizarro wrote:
The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me.
"steal" is at least pejorative and perhaps insulting. All human concepts are partly obtained from other humans and earlier concepts. The average amount of additional useful information that is added to the cultural mosaic by each individual human is, I think, very small.
I would agree that Christianity has served as one conduit for moral codes (and immoral advice as well). We disagree however, about where the moral codes originate. You have been steeped in a belief system that says the codes are guidance from an invisible creator who "loves" his created creatures, but has also created cancer, death by burning in volcanoes, tsunamis, and all the other pain, gruesome diseases, and afflictions for humankind. I have read the bible, koran, and volumes of religious propaganda, and concluded that all of it is human invention, that there is no reliable evidence for a god, and that the moral codes are human inventions too.
When I say that moral codes are human invention I do not mean that they are arbitrary, any more than the shape of a wheel is an arbitrary shape. Moral codes have evolved within human culture to jointly serve the self-interest of individuals and the communities in they live.
Also, I believe, from observation of other people and personal introspection, that humans have an intrinsic morality, derived from evolution in the same way as other genetically-determined characteristics. This intrinsic morality is the result of genes that shape our brains to make us feel good when we help others, and feel uncomfortable if we lie or cheat.
Returning to your jibe about atheists stealing ideology from Christianity, I would describe it quite differently. I would say atheists are seeking to improve the moral health of humankind by discarding the belief in fictitious gods and much inappropriate advice bundled with that belief, and replacing it with an enlightened view of self-interest.
Other Comments by Donald
40. Comment #22639 by Didaktylos on February 20, 2007 at 4:48 am
I take it that the European Commission will be taking over the Habsburg Veto?Other Comments by Didaktylos
41. Comment #22640 by besserwisser on February 20, 2007 at 7:55 am
@captain underpants (Comment #22543)> info about atheist/humanist organisations
> in Germany?
Try http://brights-deutschland.de/,
http://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/ or
http://hpd-online.de/.
Other Comments by besserwisser
42. Comment #22641 by denoir on February 20, 2007 at 8:16 am
The "Berlin declaration" is a red herring. There are a number of member states that would never accept a reference to Christian values in an official documents.The French for instance with their laïcité are as close as you can get to militant secular fundamentalists. Mention religion in connection with any official state business and they'll man the barricades in no time.
Other Comments by denoir
43. Comment #22642 by MouthAlmighty on February 20, 2007 at 8:20 am
"Care to elaborate on this?"
No, not really. This conclusion is the only rational inference one can derive from atheism. You seem like a rather intelligent person, so I don't think you need some theist ninny like myself to explain the logical implications of your own faith.
What conclusion? There was nothing conclusive about your statement hence the invitation to elaborate. It might have been nice of you to address my further request for clarification but don't let that bother you.
As for our "faith" this really is the most tedious example of lazy theistic 'critique.' You imagine that since proof of god's existence or non-existence is equally impossible that both propositions are therefore equally possible. Therefore a confident rejection of the god hypothesis by the atheist is an act of "faith" equal in magnitude to the intellectual suicide of theism. The language of logic is clearly attractive to you but like most theists you shy from the consequences of applying it fully. I think you'll find that many of us 'religious atheists' will gladly relinquish our "faith" in favour of avowed agnosticism just as soon as theists like yourself declare yourselves equally (and logically) agnostic on the existence of all other gods but your own. I think it was Stephen Henry Roberts who said, "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Please, for consistency's sake, don't use the word "should". That word means nothing within the context of secular humanism. There is only "will". I will do what I will do. What if I believe that these values you speak of should not be observed, but instead that I should exterminate all the Jews in the world? Your version of "should" is not many other's version of "should". If you say to a terrorist "don't blow up that building", and he asks "why not?", what can you say? That he shouldn't because you and a few other people said he shouldn't? That's a logically unjustifiable claim. Shouldn't, according to the implications of the atheist paradigm, is therefore whatever I make it.
Oh, do get a grip! Your determination to characterise the proposed declaration as some kind of objective, immutable, totalitarian secularist creed is a straw man. It's not an atheist manifesto to take over Europe and stamp out religion. The only reason it exists as a proposition at all is because there are politically influential theists out there making noises about "a Christian Europe" which on political grounds alone is inherently divisive. I think you'll find that most of the secular humanists here would rather do without such a document entirely and instead trust the diverse collection of societies to get along on the basis of democratic consensus agreed on the basis of mutual well being. The proposed declaration is merely a rational response to those who have more faith in iron age fiction than modern day humans.
"The very notion that you can conceive of people as worthless save for the blessing of your "higher entity" is frankly obscene."
Why is it obscene?
Because your "higher entity" has some very odd ideas about right and wrong, and his influence on the moral conduct of people in my world depends on said people relinquishing critical reasoning in the acceptance or otherwise of said ideas. The fact that I find myself having to deal with people who honestly believe that if there is anything at all to be valued in being human it is only at the behest of a fictional character from an ancient myth an obscenity.
So then you're saying that the point of the declaration is to use shoddy, circular logic to try to justify a belief in human worth?
No.
""I have value because it says so in the bible. My opinion matters because I'm a Christian""
Once again, you seem like an intelligent person, so I don't think I need to point out the obvious flaw here. But, for the sake of the others, well, it's a strawman! If God says I have value, I have value. God says I have value, therefore, I have value. My justification has little to do with my opinion; it has everything to do with God's. Not to mention, my justification doesn't rely on circular reasoning…
Sorry - but I can hardly be accused of constructing a straw man by drawing out the logical equivalent of your statement. If there's anything shaky about the statement then it's the premise upon which you build it; that there exists an external invisible supernatural authority to lend substance to the claim.
"No need to force "secular humanist dogma" on them."
Not quite. While atheists claim that education should consist of information on all religions, they tacitly deny the existence of God (or any supernatural creator) by advocating purely a purely naturalistic causation for the Universe, life, and the diversity of life. As long as the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and microbe-to-man evolution are presented as fact in science classes, then there will always exist a strong prevalence of secular humanism in public education, for this supposed information renders the existence a supernatural creator moot.
Your true colours are showing through here Biz. You're deliberately conflating religion and science and thereby suggesting that the atheist table is rigged. The former has no place in the latter. As Laplace said to Napoleon, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis." Anyone who holds a religious belief that managed to survive a truly objective, comparative scrutiny alongside all other propositions deserves the freedom to hold that belief. If the factual world of science impinges on the acquisition of that belief, well… that's what faith is for, no?
"As for 'logically unjistified claims as science' care to nominate one?"
Guess.
Look, Biz, if you don't have the confidence in your own convictions then what you're doing here is little more than trolling. If you want us to continue to take you seriously then at least show us the respect that we've shown you.
Once again, I'm seeing a fairly obvious strawman. I do not have a low opinion of human beings. In fact, my opinion of human beings is quite superior to yours, given the fact that I can rationally justify mine.
What? Saying, "it's so because god/the bible says so, not me" qualifies as a rational justification? I'm still yet to see something rational. Or rather, I'm waiting to see something that stands up on its own merit rather than appealing to a supernatural authority whilst being propped up by the straw man of an atheist manifesto for European domination.
You've still failed to address one of my central points. Does a diamond have value because it says it does?
This is a "central point?" Christ! Robert Maynard has already given a more than adequate account which is in need of no elaboration from me.
================
Other Comments by MouthAlmighty
44. Comment #22645 by MouthAlmighty on February 20, 2007 at 6:02 am
I'm sure that Janus is more than capable of dealing with these without any help from me (in fact, the way things are going with the posts he probably already has) but I've got a slack day today so… If Atheism is true, then it logically follows that there is no objective moral standard, no objective human worth, etc., therefore it is not too hard to justify evil actions.
WTF?
OK, first of all, atheism isn't a factual statement; it's not a proposition which can be held to measures of truth or falsity; it merely denotes the state of not accepting the proposition that there exists a supernatural creator/interventionist god/gods. As Sam Harris puts it, "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."
Therefore, what you're actually saying here is 'If atheists are right, and theists are wrong, and there is in fact no god, there is therefore no reason to observe any moral standards.'
This is morally repugnant. Some of the "noises" we reasonable people make relate to the fact that not only do we not need holy books and holy people to tell us how and why we should act in a moral manner, there are in fact better reasons for being good than are offered in holy books. For instance, that it is better to do the right thing because one believes it to be right, because one has a self generated, genuine, sincere concern for the wellbeing of one's fellows, rather than doing so merely out of fear of divine retribution for not doing so.
No doubt you'll be of the opinion that such intellectual freedom to decide what's right and what's wrong for myself without the external, immutable divine word upon which to anchor my morality, is an act of supreme arrogance. Once again this merely reflects the decidedly low opinion you have of human beings.
You seriously need to re-evaluate your understanding of science. Historical science carries nowhere near the same level of certainty found in empirical science. I don't even think Dawkins would disagree with me on this. Empirical science deals with that which can be repeated and observed whereas historical science involves past events that cannot be repeated. We can infer logical conclusions from the existing evidence of a certain occurrence, but we can by no means prove it in the scientific sense. It is the difference between witnessing a crime and solving a crime after the fact using forensic evidence. Whereas we can infer the best logical information from the data, we cannot be sure that the crime happened as we believe it did.
I won't dispute that historical science differs from empirical science, but you're trying to pass off historical science as little more than a story about how things might have been in the past. It is substantially more than this thanks in large part to the tools of empirical science, many of which rely upon the objective validity of the assumptions in historical science and many of which confirm said assumptions.
=============
EDIT: Tip for anyone having trouble following the order of the posts at the moment: This post is...
"41. Comment #22645" - if you follow the second number (#22645) these seem to be in order. A pain I know, but I have complete faith in Josh putting this right - sure he's been v-busy recently with the server move so a bit of patience is in order, methinks.
=============
Other Comments by MouthAlmighty
45. Comment #22646 by Donald on February 20, 2007 at 6:12 am
stpetes (David Robertson) wrote:
"We, the people of Europe, hereby affirm our common values. They are based not on a single culture or tradition but are founded in all of the cultures that make up modern Europe."
Really? So the Islamic culture that demands the subjugation of women is part of our common values.
David, did you misread this? "Common" here refers to present in all of them.
So subjugation of women is clearly not part of common values!
(Or are you trolling, as you were accused of before?)
The rest of the declaration is a worthy attempt to find things in common across all religions and the non-religious.
Also, please keep in mind that when people speak of human rights, there is an implicit understanding that conflicts between rights will be resolved in a socially responsible way. For example, if you have a right to exercise your arm, and I have a right to not be punched in the face, then a fuller statement of your right to swing your arm would say something like "you may swing arm freely, except where it would hit people in the face". To explicitly elaborate all such conflicts would inflate the declaration enormously, perhaps without limit. So, in practice, these conflicts are ignored for simplicity in drafting the rights, and it is expected that conflicts will be treated with the same ethos that guided the rights.
Some of your criticisms of the rest of the declaration suffer from apparently ignoring this.
Other Comments by Donald
46. Comment #22663 by lpetrich on February 20, 2007 at 11:53 am
I'll now respond to Bizarro Dawkins.The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me. You attack religion, but then borrow its ideals and claim them for your own.
What's "atheist ideology"? This seems like projection to me.
(a lot of blathering about "worth" deleted...)
If by "comprehensive education" they mean forcing secular humanist dogma down children's throats, then they seriously need to look up the word "comprehensive".
What's "secular humanist dogma"? Anything that you dislike?
If by "education" they mean stifling any inquiry whatsoever into a logically unjustified claim being touted as science, then they also need to look up the word "education".
What do you mean? Any scientific result that you dislike?
I've noticed that atheists really like to muddy the waters by using the word "science" interchangeably in the context of past events and present, repeatable events, therefore clouding the distinction between historical science and empirical science.
Except that there is no such distinction -- all forms of science are based on extrapolation and inference.
Atheists like Dawkins tend to talk about the science that gave us the cellular phone and helped us discover the laws of thermodynamics, and then talk about microbe-to-man evolution in the same context, as if it somehow carried the same amount of certainty and authority inherent within empirical science. While this statement may not directly state the relationship, it is certainly implied in the language used.
Bizarro Dawkins, you seem rather desperate to discredit "historical science". Could it be because it results in something contrary to certain of your pet beliefs?
"The very notion that you can conceive of people as worthless save for the blessing of your "higher entity" is frankly obscene."
Why is it obscene?
Because it's extremely misanthropic -- it's like saying that you would hate all of humanity unless you were commanded not to by some alleged cosmic superbeing.
While atheists claim that education should consist of information on all religions, they tacitly deny the existence of God (or any supernatural creator) by advocating purely a purely naturalistic causation for the Universe, life, and the diversity of life. As long as the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and microbe-to-man evolution are presented as fact in science classes, then there will always exist a strong prevalence of secular humanism in public education, for this supposed information renders the existence a supernatural creator moot.
Bizarro Dawkins, you are making yourself look like a big fat crybaby. You are only complaining because it does not include your pet beliefs. I don't see you complaining about the rejection of numerous other supernatural explanations, like the demon theory of disease and the angel theory of planetary motion.
"The tendency of Christians to claim ideals which are found nowhere in the Bible as their own is much more astonishing, and hypocritical."
Oh, do tell.
Like democracy, rationality, and feminism. You have to do some extremely selective proof-texting to get those out of the Bible.
(a lot more blathering about "worth" deleted)
"Are you, presumably a religious person, actually claiming that slavery, genocide, and murder arose because of moral subjectivism? Open a history book sometime."
Now you are committing the fallacy of attacking the ideal rather than those claiming to represent that ideal. The perpetrators of such atrocities have in the past used ideals such as Christianity in order to justify their actions, but it would be a serious miscalculation to attribute their actions to the ideal itself.
The No True Scotsman fallacy.
Also, when people try to justify evil actions with the Bible for example, they must do a fair amount of word twisting and verse de-contextualization.
Pure projection. The Bible directly commands a lot of things that we nowadays consider VERY odious, like genocide and misogyny.
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you, and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut 7:1-5)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html lists:
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (it being covered; 1 Cor 11:3-10)
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor 14:33-35)
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Eph 5:22-24)
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Tim 2:11-15)
(some more on "empirical" vs. "historical" science...)
And even if "historical" science is less certain than "empirical" science, how would that demonstrate that (say) the Universe is only 6000 years old?
Other Comments by lpetrich
47. Comment #22668 by AntonyR on February 20, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I have sent an email to my MEPs this afternoon and already had one response of support. I have recently created a new webpage that is focused solely on action and not discussion and via this page I have the link for those that want to send an email to their MEPs and MP and also a template email to send to save you having to write one from scratch:http://www.atheistactioncentral.blogspot.com
It's located in the "Priority Actions" section below Ban Faith Schools.
Other Comments by AntonyR
48. Comment #22674 by sindiosxfa on February 20, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I would like to see included in the Brussels Declaration a part where children remain free of religion until they are old enough to choose if they want to believe or not.Other Comments by sindiosxfa
49. Comment #22682 by FXR on February 20, 2007 at 4:19 pm
What we need enshrined in every constitution is freedom from religion. Then people like Bizarro (that part of the name is apt) above can dance naked with a purple feather headdress during a full moon if he wants to and the rest of us can get on with it.The difference between religionism and atheism is the former is imposed and the latter is arrived at by logical examination of evidence.
Other Comments by FXR
50. Comment #22683 by Russell Blackford on February 20, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Well, we'd all like to see our favourite idea in a document like this.On second thought, I really wouldn't. I think that we need some basic protections from government overreaching into our private lives - protections of free speech, freedom of belief and association, and the like - and the rest should be left to the democratic process.
The more I think about it, the less I like the Brussels document, though it's obviously a lot better than anything I can imagine being drafted by Merkel and company. I think it's a mistake to start writing a whole lot of substantive values into such documents. In a liberal democracy, people are entitled to have a wide range of values. The main thing is to have constitutional protections so that the government of the day is constrained in how far it can impose its values on us.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #22500 by Linda on February 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm
New Zealand is in step with human values."Despite outrage from some religious groups, a revised national statement on religious diversity has retained the principle that New Zealand has no state religion."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/3967386a10.html
Other Comments by Linda