51. Comment #22685 by MelM on February 20, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Giving up secularism is moving toward the Islamist view of society. After that's done, there only remains the question of which cult will dominate.

If Europe declares itself to be Christian, the "Christian Nation" noise in the U.S. will get louder. The Dominionists are trying to turn a demographically Christian nation (which the U.S. is) into a politically Christian nation (which the U.S. isn't). It's important to distinquish between demographically Christian and politically Christian.

Tom Paine (Prospect Papers):
The christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense. Why is man afraid to think?

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/prospect_papers.html

Other Comments by MelM

52. Comment #22690 by MelM on February 20, 2007 at 6:44 pm

The Brussels Declaration

An odd document full of loop holes.

Short form:
"You can have your liberties until and unless a democratically elected government decides to restrict them in the name of "social responsibility." I don't even see a rejection of involuntary servitude to the state. And, it's hard to tell if TGD would be "tolerant" enough.

Under the Brussels Declaration, I might not have a basis to be outraged in the case of the following:

I've fired off e-mails to my senator and the Chairman(KJMWEB@fcc.gov) of the FCC (US Federal Communications Commission) over the new and outrageous attempt to regulate violence on TV. This is a restriction of freedom of speech for a "social cause." Hell, violations of freedom of speech are always for a "social cause." Bush is still trying of stop Oregon's doctor assisted suicide law. Some see that right as having a deadly impact on some people because of misuse. If we give up freedoms because of potential harm, we'll have none at all. I urge Americans to protest this attempt by the FCC to regulate speech. Send some e-mails! (Remember that the evangelicals may see the harm done by atheists as far far worse than anything resulting from some violence on TV.)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/16/tvviolence.ap/index.html

Other Comments by MelM

53. Comment #22692 by Pertel on February 20, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Diamonds have worth because there are relatively few of them, do they not?

Living organisms that feel pain and suffering have worth. It's because we unconsciously think: "would i want to be treated like i had no worth?" no i wouldn't, and therefore i treat others as I would they treat me; as if i had worth.

Other Comments by Pertel

54. Comment #22693 by Bremas on February 20, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Leaving my place right now to go see Prof Dawkins give a presentation a couple of blocks away.
Just wanted to say it.

Other Comments by Bremas

55. Comment #22695 by Robert Maynard on February 20, 2007 at 11:22 pm

MelM: "An odd document full of loop holes."

It's not a legal document that will actually inform state policies, I presume, but I agree that it's perhaps a little sloppy. What's wrong with just re-affirming the UN's declaration of human rights?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

56. Comment #22759 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 21, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Being a full-time college student (biology major no less), I can only answer a few selected statements. I'll try to cover all the main points, but forgive me if I don't respond to each claim.

"I have this picture of him having to lie down after his posts due to the strain of thinking at this level."

I imagine this is why you have provided such a compelling and obviously well thought-out argument against my claim.

"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."

Why? What objective truth are you basing this claim on? What if I determined the intrinsic value of a person or group of people by considering religious beliefs, or ethnic backround? History would disagree with your claim. People have always designated human worth based on a variety of criteria, and their criteria, however flawed, are no more arbitrary than yours.

""Humans are equal in worth because we possess a mind complex enough to recognize 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 recognize it in our fellow man - therefore, we are important, and all of us are equally so.""

Besides once again relying on circular reasoning, there are several considerations that this proposition fails to take into account. What if someone did not value his or her own self, and therefore valued the lives of others likewise? What if I say that Humans are not equal in worth on the basis that some have a different skin color that I find particularly unappealing? There are many examples of this in history. Also, how can one know that other humans possess complex minds capable of recognizing his or her value? What about the mentally handicapped (who are obviously not capable of deeper thinking, or of assigning value)? This justification serious questions, and due to its lacking explanatory power and scope, should not be considered.

And yes, the anthropic paradigm is based on fallacious logic. It assumes that which it is trying to prove, and does not qualify as a basic belief. It is therefore irrational.

"All human concepts are partly obtained from other humans and earlier concepts."

I'm not talking about generic human concepts. I'm talking about the origins of morals. Morals are indeed shared between cultures and people groups, but there still must have ultimately been an original source.

"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."

I don't know, this looks like a word game to me. Oh well…

Atheism is a philosophy, just like all the other philosophies. It makes positive assertions about the world and how it operates. It provides a framework by which the individual can interpret the world around him. Therefore, since a central claim is that God (or god(s)) does not exist, then it logically follows that there is no objective moral standard by which we can argue against what we perceive as evil actions.

"For instance, that it is better to do the right thing because one believes it to be right,"

But what if I feel that the right thing to do is burn Atheists on stakes as I denounce them as witches? Are you starting to see the big picture now?

"I won't dispute that historical science differs from empirical science,"

And yet in one of your previous comments you said, essentially equivocating the two distinct realms of science,

"The distinction is irrelevant in this context.

"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."

Very inconsistent:-(

"…but you're trying to pass off historical science as little more than a story about how things might have been in the past."

Quit it with the boorish strawmen, please. Nowhere do I state or imply this. My point was simply that atheists' implied equivocation of the two realms of science is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters. Empirical science and historical science differ in that one is congruent with standard scientific method, which carries a very high level of certainty, whereas the other relies on the interpretation of stagnant evidence. There are certainly similarities between the two, but the differences are undeniable and must be acknowledged if any coherent dialogue is to occur.

"You imagine that since proof of god's existence or non-existence is equally impossible that both propositions are therefore equally possible."

Not quite. In fact, absolutely wrong. I imagine that God's existence can be shown to be reasonable or unreasonable. I don't like to use flawed words such as "proof". They're so shallow. I believe that in every belief we hold to exists an element of faith whether or not we acknowledge it. You cannot absolutely prove I can exist, neither can I prove you exist, but we can demonstrate each other's existence to be reasonable based on experience. Therefore any belief we have consists of reasonability and faith.

I would go into the reasonability of God's existence, but I feel that would be getting off topic. Maybe on another post:-)

"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."

Actually, I'm what I like to call a "soft agnostic". I, like many other skeptics throughout history, choose to define knowledge as absolute certainty. I therefore do not believe that I can know of God's existence. I certainly believe it to be reasonable based on a fair amount of evidence and logical justification, but I agree that it cannot be known either way, that is, when absolute certainty becomes a necessary condition for knowledge. Bet you weren't expecting that…

"Your determination to characterise the proposed declaration as some kind of objective, immutable, totalitarian secularist creed is a straw man."

Now see what happens when you let emotion taint your arguments? You start making rationally unconnected claims. Where do I, in the statement you have cited in the box above your statement, even mention the declaration in the article? That statement was a response to a claim made in another comment, not the article. Do get a grip.

"Because your "higher entity" has some very odd ideas about right and wrong…"

On what basis are you judging God? Your own? Very well then. On my own basis, I judge that your ideas about right and wrong are obscene. Without God, it's just my word against yours.

And please, for the sake of intellectual honesty, don't use the words "right" and "wrong". They have no meaning without an objective basis. My "right" can be different from your "right", and there is no logic or evidence anywhere in the Universe to demonstrate that either of us is right.

"You're deliberately conflating religion and science and thereby suggesting that the atheist table is rigged."

No, actually I'm conflating religion and religion.

"If the factual world of science impinges on the acquisition of that belief, well… that's what faith is for, no?"

No, not really. You're implying blind faith, whereas my faith is rational faith. There is quite a distinction.

"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."

Besides the fact that you're overreacting a bit, I think you've misinterpreted my statement (or word?). It was meant somewhat as a joke, but also as an attempt to be discrete. Besides not wanting to get into yet another side-topic, I don't much care for being overly blunt.

And please, no more superfluous trolling accusations. Trolls are simply bent on provoking negative responses for the fun of it. I honestly seek to broaden my own intellectual horizons, as well as to help others broaden theirs. Debating is a fantastic way to do it.

"it's like saying that you would hate all of humanity unless you were commanded not to by some alleged cosmic superbeing."

That's rather inaccurate. Try this: It would be like saying that I would have no logical justification to value other humans unless I was prompted to by the necessary First Cause.

"Bizarro Dawkins, you are making yourself look like a big fat crybaby."

Well, I yam what I yam.

"The No True Scotsman fallacy."

Good try, but your understanding of this fallacy is somewhat shallow. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't applicable here given the context of my statement. It only works when the predicate is not actually contradictory to the accepted definition of the subject, or if the definition is manipulated by the person making the claim in order for it to be a valid claim. Therefore, if anyone who claims to adhere to an ideal and lives contrary to that ideal, then they are then they are obviously mislabeling themselves. Anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian must follow the commands and example of Christ. If he or she fails to live according to that ideal, then he or she ceases to exist as a Christian. I would not attack vegetarianism on the basis of my friend who claims to be a vegetarian and eats hot dogs. Therefore it is irrational to attack an established ideal on the basis of those who claim to follow the ideal being considered.

"The Bible directly commands a lot of things that we nowadays consider VERY odious, like genocide and misogyny."

I don't have the time to explain this, but all of the verses used to support these arguments are either taken out of their literal or historical context, or misinterpreted. You'd be amazed at how many strawmen Dawkins uses in regards to the Bible.

"It's because we unconsciously think: "would i want to be treated like i had no worth?" no i wouldn't, and therefore i treat others as I would they treat me; as if i had worth."

Stalin obviously didn't "unconsciously" think such.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

57. Comment #22762 by lpetrich on February 22, 2007 at 4:09 am

(lots of stuff about worth...)

I find it hard to stifle a yawn. The subject of "worth" does not seem like a very meaningful one to me.

("historical" vs. "empirical" science...)

My point was simply that atheists' implied equivocation of the two realms of science is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters. ...

That distinction is completely artificial; a more honest version might be "science that I like" vs. "science that I dislike".

Actually, I'm what I like to call a "soft agnostic". I, like many other skeptics throughout history, choose to define knowledge as absolute certainty. I therefore do not believe that I can know of God's existence.

So everybody who has claimed otherwise is just plain wrong?

"You're deliberately conflating religion and science and thereby suggesting that the atheist table is rigged."

No, actually I'm conflating religion and religion.

Bizarro Dawkins, are you using "religion" as a dirty word?

"it's like saying that you would hate all of humanity unless you were commanded not to by some alleged cosmic superbeing."

That's rather inaccurate. Try this: It would be like saying that I would have no logical justification to value other humans unless I was prompted to by the necessary First Cause.

So you are only following the NFC's orders?

Anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian must follow the commands and example of Christ. If he or she fails to live according to that ideal, then he or she ceases to exist as a Christian.

So it's possible to beeeeelieeeeeve in Jesus Christ and not be a Xian? And I hope that you realize that the large majority of professed Xians are not really Xians by your definition. Many of Jesus Christ's teachings have not been very commonly followed, like where he commands:

Love your enemies.
If someone does something nasty to you, let them do something else nasty to you.
Don't try to demonstrate how pious you are to others.
Don't call anyone any insulting names.
Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor.
Remove parts of your body that make you commit sins.
Don't *ever* say *anything* nasty about the Holy Spirit.
Desert your family to follow him, and love him more than you love your family.
Be rude and disrespectful to your parents.
Forget about trying to earn a living, since God will rain food and clothing down on you.

"The Bible directly commands a lot of things that we nowadays consider VERY odious, like genocide and misogyny."

I don't have the time to explain this, but all of the verses used to support these arguments are either taken out of their literal or historical context, or misinterpreted. You'd be amazed at how many strawmen Dawkins uses in regards to the Bible.

You don't have time to answer critical questions? That's what they all say. :p

Which is a strange response for someone who claims to feel so strongly about how I have allegedly been misinterpreting the Bible and quoting it out of context.

Other Comments by lpetrich

58. Comment #22763 by epeeist on February 22, 2007 at 4:22 am

Comment #22759 by Bizarro Dawkins

I don't have the time to explain this, but all of the verses used to support these arguments are either taken out of their literal or historical context, or misinterpreted.

Why should the bible have a "literal or historical" context if it was written by God? What you are effectively saying is that it was either written by God and converted to a fallible document by man, or that it was put together from a set of old folk tales by man in the first place.

In either case you can't claim the bible to be any more morally authoritative than, say, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

Other Comments by epeeist

59. Comment #22767 by Corylus on February 22, 2007 at 2:43 am

Bizzaro

Sigh… you are a strange one… I thought I understood your position on this debate from your first paragraph.

"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".

Ok, I thought a proponent of deontological morality and an opponent of relativism, understood.

However… now you are posting comments like the following:

"I imagine that God's existence can be shown to be reasonable or unreasonable. I don't like to use flawed words such as "proof". They're so shallow. I believe that in every belief we hold to exists an element of faith whether or not we acknowledge it."

Now, I am not a mathematician, but I do have a passing knowledge of logic and describing proofs as "shallow" is a comment worthy only of a brain-addled postmodernist.

Please, please, make up your mind, either you're a relativist or you're not, either you want "rationally justified claims" or you don't.

I suspect though that you are aware of this inconsistency, and are merely using the fact that claims to knowledge are often problematic to muddy the waters, and divert attention from the fact that all of your arguments are based on the unjustified assertion that God exists, that God must exist. This may well work in a Liberty University debating room: it will not work here.

Other Comments by Corylus

60. Comment #22768 by BillySands on February 22, 2007 at 2:51 am

bizzaro
"Being a full-time college student (biology major no less),"


YAAAAWWWWNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!


"I don't have the time to explain this, but all of the verses used to support these arguments are either taken out of their literal or historical context, or misinterpreted"

What, you mean like Matthew took Isaiah 7:14 out of context and mistranslated it, or that he also took Micah 5:2 out of context?
Slavery and murdering of your family for worshiping others gods is ALLWAYS wrong, no ifs buts or other pleas. As is making a rapist marry his victim, and stoning homosexuals. All this is the law of your god and the moral standards are his. Jesus often contradicts this insanity. However, he is not perfect either. He would not sell a jar of expensive perfume to help the poor Matt 26 " 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. 8 But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, "Why this waste? 9 "For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor." 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. 11 "For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me."
Nasty Jesus, it is allways about him, and we will allways have the poor, so stuff them. Yet, he knows this action is wrong: Matt 25:" 41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' 44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' 45 "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Richard said that Liberty students like you sould attend a proper university. However, I dont think you would get in.

Dr Billy (a "normal" Scotsman with a PhD from a proper university (Biochemistry no less))

PS I will ignore you from now on. It is the best thing for you, I dont think I should feed your delusion or your obvious insecurity and need at having to convince yourself of what you believe.



Other Comments by BillySands

61. Comment #22772 by Robert Maynard on February 22, 2007 at 7:44 am

Bizarro,
It is an unenviable position to wage an argument on several fronts, so I'll keep to my turf and only reply to sections of your comment dealing with my arguments - frankly, you have responded to quite a few claims I find vaporous - and I won't waste time defending them (because, at the end of the day, this comment still responds to the majority of your continuing argument).

I suspected that pathological and handicapped persons would be the next step once I invoked the importance of experience, and I think it's the best place to start. I'm guessing that when you talk about someone who doesn't value themselves, and doesn't value other people likewise, you are thinking of an extreme example, with a pathological dysfunction, that could quite possibly lead to violent crimes. You basically ask, "doesn't this kind of person upset your whole equal value crap?"
Well, no. Everyone obviously has not only different conceptions of themselves, but varying levels of respect or admiration for their fellow man, (though, I defy you to produce any accurate and comparable form of measuring this value amongst a sample population - the fact is our self-respect and our respect for others are all quasi-rational and based on personality development). The fact of the matter is that social policy is about what's best for the group, while respecting the individual. It is, at the end of day, a matter of ought, rather than is. The ultimate goal, naturally, is to transform oughts into is's, through artificial selection (by minimising poverty, punishing crimes, providing free education, etc.) :P

I suppose I should emphasise that when I say there is an empirical basis for human worth, I am arguing that our oughts (humans are of equal value) are not arbitrary - not that everyone in society today actually does value each other equally, and affirm these rational reasons as the basis of this respect.
When you invoke pejorative criteria for assigning worth, like racism, sexism and all the other ills of human barbarism, and use them to say that I am ignoring the historical record, you're attacking the noble aims of our oughts with the ignoble past of our were's - embarrassing examples of cruelty shared by all of our ancestors (of which the majority were religious - to risk parroting the usual accusations).
The fact is, that like your "Jews are worthless" analogy, these are not rationally derived prejudices, which is why it is simply wrong to claim that the individuals ability to stereotype out-groups without evidence somehow trumps any modern social consensus that discrimination is bad, and indicates moral relativism gone mad.

There's simply no evidence for that attitude, or reason to imagine why the potential madness of individual subjectivity might ever beat out social consensus, in a rational, secular society.

Someone could at this point ironically point out that the rationally baseless discrimination of the Christian majority HAS hijacked social consensus in America. ...Well, exactly. America is currently not an altogether rational, secular society.

ONTO THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED!
An important part of secular documents like the UN's declaration of human rights and this document is the rights of humans to develop to their full potential. Having your potential limited by a handicap does not limit your worth. It could certainly be argued it limits your worth to society, or to your genes, but does it limit your worth to your mother? (secretly: I endorse the speculative entitlement of the mother to euthanise a child whose handicap is so severe that it sets them both up for a life of mental and physical anguish)

The diversity of human mutation is vast, so generalisations at this point are very difficult to make, but I will repeat myself: it's primarily experiential faculties I am using in my argument to justify human worth. The ability to "think deeply" doesn't really enter into it, which is why I also think there are a great deal of animals with experiential faculties complex enough that it is unethical to kill them, imprison them in non-simulated environments; and for a few others, especially unethical to kill them in sight of their fellow animals. (secretly: I think a noble goal for genetic engineering or artificial selection is to breed for livestock with limited sensory apparatus - imagine how much more humane we'd be if our cows were blind, deaf, and couldn't even experience pain, just for starters)

So yeah, I hold that even if permanently saddled with cognitive abilities comparable to a child, most mentally handicapped humans absolutely have the same worth. They're certainly not inferior, and any prejudiced group in a rationally run society which called for their execution, for example, would need to seriously demonstrate that they cause harm to society, harm which overrules not only their right to a happy life, but their importance to their mothers, for example.

When you posed your hypothetical "Jews are worthless", I answered by basically saying you'd have to demonstrate them to be less than human in order to make them worth any less than other humans. To which you replied..
"What objective truth are you basing this claim on?"

Well, which claim? That Jews are humans? Well, they are. The burden of proof is on you (or rather, the hypothetical anti-semites) to demonstrate why they're not.
Our basis for the empathetic assumption that others have internal states comparable to our own is that we observe in others the same range of behaviours that we ourselves perform, and that predicting the behaviour of others is most easily done with the assumption that they are feeling, intentioned, and otherwise will react in a similar way to us. Given such evidence, the foolish (and biologically counter-intuitive) thing to assume is that others are somehow coincidentally sentient seeming automatons, while we ourselves are not.
So, if we're all practically the same, this paves the way for our understanding of 'ought' behaviours. In acknowledging that other sentient beings appear in a certain way to us, we reason that we ourselves appear the same in their eyes.
Under such circumstances, the dialogue of "The Golden Rule" takes place. I should treat others in a way comparable to how I would prefer to be treated, as failing to do so would cause the same distress and reactions from them as I would experience, and perhaps invite equally undesirable behaviour towards me. It's seriously that simple.

Here's the rub: we've argued that being human is itself, a term indicating value, a value we prescribe upon ourselves because of our empathy for others (which is, again, a result of our experiential faculties) an assertion which you've argued (wrongly, I think) is circular.

I've raised this somewhat jokingly before, but you seriously need to explain why it is circular reasoning for us to assert our own worth, but it is not circular reasoning for God to assert his own worth. If I may, I would answer for you that "There is nothing higher than God, thus His worth is self-evident."

Well, atheists say the same thing, only they don't believe in God, so the highest standard of excellence is humanity, whose excellence we describe in affectionate, but rational, non-supernatural terms. We as a race are progressively acknowledging our flaws (one of which we atheists happen to recognise as doctrines of baseless faith) and are striving to better ourselves. :)
I understand that a big part of your problem with secularism is that you DO perceive an entity higher than man, and you thus see our self-appraisal in his supposed presence as the height of vanity and arrogance.
If and when you realise that this is a problem manufactured by your own particular bias and prejudices, you'll realise why we don't consider it to be a strong argument.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

62. Comment #22780 by MouthAlmighty on February 22, 2007 at 7:19 am

Sorry for the ramble everyone – got another slack day at work…

Atheism is a philosophy, just like all the other philosophies. It makes positive assertions about the world and how it operates. It provides a framework by which the individual can interpret the world around him.

OK - at the risk of sounding like a pedant… atheism is not a philosophy, it merely denotes a refusal to give up one's faculties of critical reasoning when it comes to the proposition that, there exists a creator/interventionist god/s regardless of how comforting such a belief may be.

The characterisation of atheism as a, "philosophy/religion/faith position" is a deliberate category error; a favourite tactic of the theist because it allows critiques of atheism to be couched in terms religious critiques; "If we stink so do you! Nugh! Nugh!"

Therefore, since a central claim is that God (or god(s)) does not exist, then it logically follows that there is no objective moral standard by which we can argue against what we perceive as evil actions.

You're question begging. There is no "objective moral standard" which follows, logically or otherwise from the existence of God. I'll admit that there is a widely held presupposition of such a relationship, one clearly held by and relied on by you, but popularity is no guarantee of reliability.

You're free to correct me of course, but I get the clear impression that your enthusiasm for the equivocation of belief in/existence of God and objective/sense of morality relies largely on the implication of 'a source other than mankind' which derives its authority merely by virtue of its non-humanness. It implies that humans are incapable of formulating a moral sense or even recognising morality unless it bares the brand of a supernatural source. Worse than this, it implies that humans cannot be trusted to behave in a moral manner. This is what I am pointing to when I say you have a decidedly low opinion of humans.

In fact, here's an idea for you… if morality does have a divine origin, then anything I or any other secular humanist type says about the origin or validity of my morality is a delusion. No matter how vehemently I claim to be master of my own moral code, you know different. That doesn't mean I will act immorally, it just means I won't give credit where it's due (according to you). So when it comes to the proposed EU declaration, surely (despite the arrogance and ignorance of those who wrote it) this document is certainly guided by the hand of god in much the same way as the bible. If so, then what is it about the document that you find so disturbing? Given this reasoning, it seems all you're arguing for is the acknowledgement of some earthly source of society's moral diktats. It's an anti-secular position in much the same way as the Enlightenment was anti-church: nothing to do with the existence of god and everything to do with social authority.

"For instance, that it is better to do the right thing because one believes it to be right,"

But what if I feel that the right thing to do is burn Atheists on stakes as I denounce them as witches? Are you starting to see the big picture now?

With enough selective quoting (as above), ignorance of context, reductio ad absurdum, etc, you'll always be able to make an argument, in a twisted, postmodernist kind of way.

"I won't dispute that historical science differs from empirical science,"

And yet in one of your previous comments you said, essentially equivocating the two distinct realms of science,

No, actually I didn't.

Quit it with the boorish strawmen, please. Nowhere do I state or imply this. My point was simply that atheists' implied equivocation of the two realms of science is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters… There are certainly similarities between the two, but the differences are undeniable and must be acknowledged if any coherent dialogue is to occur.

Then you ought to give an example of how an atheist (or anyone for that matter) has either wilfully passed off historical science as empirical science or at least neglected to make the distinction in order to support an argument. My point is that if there exists any confusion or lack of absolute clarity between the use of both references then this is more likely inherent in the similarity of the two realms than in any underhand motives of the speaker. You appear to be making the assumption that the two are so different as to never be reasonably 'interchangeable' in coherent scientific discourse. If historical science was merely a story then this would certainly be the case. However, it amounts to a collection of robust explanatory theories founded on peer reviewed, evidence based reasoning. Much of empirical science is founded on the assumptions of historical science and vice versa. In many areas each is derived from and supports the other because they are founded on the same exacting standards. Whist I accept that caution should be advised when the two are used, quite legitimately, 'in the same breath' to make a point, given the inherent similarities, it is small wonder that this is not always the case. It doesn't always denote sharp practice.

Not quite. In fact, absolutely wrong. I imagine that God's existence can be shown to be reasonable or unreasonable. I don't like to use flawed words such as "proof". They're so shallow. I believe that in every belief we hold to exists an element of faith whether or not we acknowledge it. You cannot absolutely prove I can exist, neither can I prove you exist, but we can demonstrate each other's existence to be reasonable based on experience. Therefore any belief we have consists of reasonability and faith.

Christ! For someone who insists on clarity of terms at every juncture you're awfully keen on fudging them for your own purposes. How can the existence of anything or anyone be held to be "reasonable?"

Actually, I'm what I like to call a "soft agnostic".

You can call yourself whatever you like - there's nothing much soft or agnostic about your earlier statement...

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

…which, in addition to being question begging, sounds pretty "absolute" and "certain" to me. Which makes the following a little difficult to accept…

I, like many other skeptics throughout history, choose to define knowledge as absolute certainty. I therefore do not believe that I can know of God's existence. I certainly believe it to be reasonable based on a fair amount of evidence and logical justification, but I agree that it cannot be known either way, that is, when absolute certainty becomes a necessary condition for knowledge. Bet you weren't expecting that…

Actually I was expecting something exactly like this. Your 'reasoning' is very familiar. I used to counsel alcoholics who were absolutely certain that they were dealing with their problem merely by virtue of the fact that they attended all the meetings, talked to all the advisors, kept their appointments, etc. Since they were making all the right noises, the fact that their problem survived the intervention and persisted was 'reason' enough to continue to indulge. Of course, the reality is that what looked and certainly felt like constructive intervention was merely a diversion for themselves and others. They never actually intended to let go of their indulgence. The fact that your belief in god incorporates doubt and entertains evidence and logic ensures that it has the look and feel of reason, but it's last refuge will always be belief without evidence… "well, you can't disprove it!"

"Your determination to characterise the proposed declaration as some kind of objective, immutable, totalitarian secularist creed is a straw man."

Now see what happens when you let emotion taint your arguments? You start making rationally unconnected claims. Where do I, in the statement you have cited in the box above your statement, even mention the declaration in the article? That statement was a response to a claim made in another comment, not the article. Do get a grip.

The reductio ad absurdum argument you employed requires the rigid characterisation of the declaration I described. This may be a reasonable tool of argumentation when propositions are already clear cut and precise, it amounts to little more than sophistry in regards to the spirit of the declaration. As for the straw man accusation, I acknowledge that perhaps I should have taken time to connect the dots.

"Because your "higher entity" has some very odd ideas about right and wrong…"

On what basis are you judging God? Your own? Very well then. On my own basis, I judge that your ideas about right and wrong are obscene. Without God, it's just my word against yours.

Again you're question begging with gay abandon here. On what rational basis do you so unequivocally equate belief in god with a sense of morality? Not to mention the existence of the moral sense with the existence of God? At the very least you should be able to demonstrate the necessity for god to exist, or at the very least, for a pre-existing belief in such an entity, in the explanation of a sense of morality or demonstrably moral behaviour by relying on something other than your personal conviction. If it stands to reason, then we are not expecting too much to see what that reasoning is. BTW: "God is the source of morality, people are moral, therefore god exists" won't wash.

Biz, you really have to get to grips with the fact that atheism is not a statement of faith. When an atheist says, "I do not believe that the proposed creator/interventionist god exists" it is not a statement about god, it is a statement about the proposition that god exists. There is an important non-pedantic difference between those two positions. Theists joyfully and wilfully ignore the difference because the a priori existence of god in their universe licenses it.

And please, for the sake of intellectual honesty, don't use the words "right" and "wrong". They have no meaning without an objective basis. My "right" can be different from your "right", and there is no logic or evidence anywhere in the Universe to demonstrate that either of us is right.

I'm sick of this postmodernist bollocks! On what "objective basis" are you operating? Really, your ability to bounce from absolutism to a relativism is quite mind boggling.

"No, actually I'm conflating religion and religion."

Oh yeah… of course… derr! Silly me.

"If the factual world of science impinges on the acquisition of that belief, well… that's what faith is for, no?"

No, not really. You're implying blind faith, whereas my faith is rational faith. There is quite a distinction.

Like I said before, you can dress up your faith with as much 'rational intervention' as you like, the fact that it survives and persists does not mean that it is anything other than a choice to believe despite the opposing evidence.

Besides the fact that you're overreacting a bit, I think you've misinterpreted my statement (or word?). It was meant somewhat as a joke, but also as an attempt to be discrete.

Please Biz, you really needn't go to such lengths to save my blushes :)

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

63. Comment #22784 by fonex_86 on February 22, 2007 at 11:31 am

Bizzaro:
Science's self-correcting mechanisms are far beyond what your tiny little belief system is capable of UNDERSTANDING. So stop touting science as something that's shoved down people's throats -- we're not the ones pointing guns/knives/swords/arrows/cannons/missiles/dogma/'holy' books/threats of hells at others and forcing them to buy our faith.

Damn religious blockhead. Be your god's lackey all you want, just shut up and stop jeering us who aren't.

Other Comments by fonex_86

64. Comment #22786 by Donald on February 22, 2007 at 11:48 am

Bizarro (comment #22759) wrote:

I honestly seek to broaden my own intellectual horizons, as well as to help others broaden theirs. Debating is a fantastic way to do it.

I had not intended to reply, then I saw the above.

So here is another post to see if there can be a polite worthwhile debate.

Bizarro (also comment #22759) wrote:

"All human concepts are partly obtained from other humans and earlier concepts."
I'm not talking about generic human concepts. I'm talking about the origins of morals. Morals are indeed shared between cultures and people groups, but there still must have ultimately been an original source.

Your section above was in reply to my earlier post about morality (comment #22638), extract repeated below for convenience. I think you must have replied rather hastily. I was talking about morals too. If you disagree with anything in the extract of comment #22638, say what, as it would help to clarify where your beliefs differ.

I'd like to follow up on your "original source" point as well. To me, this echoes the divide in the evolution/creation debate. Ideas (and languages) have evolved through human history, and for long before that. Just as biological structures evolved over billions of years, so cultural ideas and concepts have been co-evolving with humans for at least tens of thousands of years (probably much longer). Just as our ancestors could (if we had enough records) be traced back indefinitely, with genetic changes along the way, so ideas and concepts (and the languages in which they are expressed) could (in principle) be traced back indefinitely, with changes along the way. According to the collective wisdom of modern science, anyway. Where do you seek to challenge this view?


Extract from Donald's comment #22638:

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.

Other Comments by Donald

65. Comment #22788 by BillySands on February 22, 2007 at 9:10 am

Where oh where do theists get the notion that god sets moral standards? Oh yeah, the bible. Funny that people who have never heard of god make the same moral judgements as the less insane theists -I do of course discount the ones who believe that homosexuals/moabites/cananites etc are evil because the bible says so. There are no moral absolutes. A moral sence is something that natural selection has provided us with. The two main mechanisms are kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Our societal context dictates our moral values, and a selective pressure to conform to our society gives us our "morality" We don't commit murder willy nilly, because natural selection tends not to favour murderers - they usually get imprisoned or executed if they are casught. Contrary to what may appear obvious, not murdering is a selfish genetic strategy. We do not get cut off from society and our offspring do not have to be raised by just one parent. Their chance of survival is then increased (remember, we did not evolve in a welfare state). All moral acts can be similarly explained. We also seem to have an ability to be brainwashed too though, but thats ok when the rest of society is brainwashed also. Moral origins can be tested, and tests show it is an inherent human property (barring brain lesions - further underlying the physical nature of the mind, conscience and conciousness)

read this for an intro to moral origins http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/evolpsych.html
as well as the relevant chapter in TGD

Confusious came up with the golden rule 500 years before jesus "force not on others that which you do not choose for yourself", and the Sumerians preempted the turn the other cheek verse "Do not return evil to your adversary;

Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you,

Maintain justice for your enemy,

Be friendly to your enemy."

So says a 3rd millennium BCE text, "Counsels of Wisdom,"
Christianity offern nothing new, and the bible preaches intolerance of other faiths and groups - sounds more like the work of men rather than a morally pure god. Then again, maybe I am so removed from god that I cant see that xenophobia and killing children in the good old joshuah and egyptian plague ways are actually good acts

Other Comments by BillySands

66. Comment #22790 by kkant on February 22, 2007 at 10:29 am

So, Bizzaro, we are taking the bible "out of context" when we condemn it? If we are taking it out of literary context, then the bible is a fairy tale masquerading as truth (in other words, a lie). If we are taking it out of historical context, then presumably you think there was some time in the past when it was good and moral to be the complete bastard that god makes himself out to be. Which one do you pick?

Incidentally, is this Bizzaro guy really a biology major from Liberty University? Same guy who appeared in the Lynchburg Q&A session, I wonder? LMAO.

Other Comments by kkant

67. Comment #22792 by Logicel on February 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

MouthAlmighty wrote in his response to Biz: "Your 'reasoning' is very familiar. I used to counsel alcoholics who were absolutely certain that they were dealing with their problem merely by virtue of the fact that they attended all the meetings, talked to all the advisors, kept their appointments, etc. Since they were making all the right noises, the fact that their problem survived the intervention and persisted was 'reason' enough to continue to indulge. Of course, the reality is that what looked and certainly felt like constructive intervention was merely a diversion for themselves and others. They never actually intended to let go of their indulgence. The fact that your belief in god incorporates doubt and entertains evidence and logic ensures that it has the look and feel of reason, but it's last refuge will always be belief without evidence… "well, you can't disprove it!"
_______

Excellent insight. Thanks.

Other Comments by Logicel

68. Comment #22819 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 8:32 am

Donald says:
"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."

A very nice analogy. Kudos. Theists make two mistakes in this regard: (1) they assume that their hypothetical "supernatural creative force" aka "god of the gaps" has anything at all to do with morals or the bible or any particular religion, and (2) they assume that attaching god to morality somehow makes it any less arbitrary than human-originated morality.

Other Comments by kkant

69. Comment #22836 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 23, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Just so you all know, I'm going out of town for the weekend and probably won't be able to respond to your comments for quite a while. And yes, I am the LU student who asked Dawkins about the reasonability of a self-creating Universe. Isn't it interesting how he totally dodged it?

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

70. Comment #22892 by Robert Maynard on February 23, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Dodged it? I'm not sure what you expected. He is, at the end of the day, a zoologist, not a cosmologist or an astro-physicist.
His answer was heavily flavoured with re-emphasising the plausibility of applying darwinian principles to cosmological questions (because - surprise! - that's his field), and basically admitting "Seriously folks, even the best physicists don't know for sure."
If we had a definite answer regarding the beginning of the universe, you wouldn't be hearing about it from a biologists lecture in Virginia. Glorifying our utter lack of certainty in this area of study as a final stronghold of God, however, is tired old god of the gaps.

Cosmology becomes so bizarre and difficult to grasp at the beginning of the universe, the diversity of theories about its beginning (or even if it has a beginning - because, let's face it - causality isn't a scientific law at all, it's a simplistic philosophical concept!) is so vast that it's going to remain a mystery for quite a while longer. Even when physicists do have an answer, it is likely to be so bizarre that it will take at least a generation of popular science writers to wrestle with developing a lucid way of describing it to layman readers.. and even longer for it to become common knowledge amongst people who.. don't read.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

71. Comment #23072 by the great teapot on February 26, 2007 at 5:45 am

Yawn

All this discussion over a usless constitution of a state that doesn't exist and a god that doesn't exist.

I notice that lots of people defend the constitution as Holy because it agrees with them.
Suppose the Constitution had started "We the christian nation .... ",would it be a holy document then or should it be changed.

Other Comments by the great teapot

72. Comment #24647 by Veronique on March 7, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Can I ask please, why are you all giving Biz so much time and effort? A few replies to his first post OK. But to keep on trying to talk sense to someone who obviously has no intention of listening to anything reasonable merely wastes so much time that could be given to more fruitful exercises.

Thank you to whomever it was who alerted me to stpetes being David Robertson.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique