I see a lot of these ads, just because I watch a lot of American TV.
In addition to the one featured there, there's one with a girl convincing her parents it'll be easier to become a doctor if she spends time as a nurse in the army, and a third one with a Hispanic boy talking about what a good opportunity it is for people like him.
There is a dreadful irony in this: Conservatives generally support this, they who worship a god who says "Don't lie" and "Don't murder". You leftists are generally Darwinists, but you protest shipping off the careless and gullible people for cannon fodder.
Thinking Republicans are stupid doesn't make you "leftist", "Darwinist" is both loaded and an inadequate term, and the incontrovertible fact of evolution happening doesn't mean that anyone has to like the results. Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics is a fact, but that doesn't make it a *good* thing, nor does that mean we shouldn't find a way to stop, reverse, or channel the process to better ends.
Wouldn't a Darwinist belief favour some kind of way of making sure that people with unfavourable traits (and I have no idea how believing an ad indicates carelessness, though I can see gullibility) died before they had a chance to breed?
I can see it now: a vast leftist movement to lower the recruiting age to prepubesence, and a new Children's Crusade.
It occurs to me that I've not usually seen any people that I think of as leftists or who self-identify as such running around yelling "No-one with a hereditary condition should benefit from health care! Having a social safety net is a terrible idea that contravenes the natural order--just like dentistry and soap! Those with wealth and power are superior! Goddammit, *it's wrong to let those icky poor or disabled genes into our precious population!*"
But then I see no irony in believing both that scientific theory is true and believing that perhaps it is worth it to try and prevent certain outcomes that can be predicted through said theory. I mean, would you consider it *ironic* for someone who believes in the theory of gravity to think banisters or balcony railings are a good idea?
I agree; I am just pointing out that why they don't seem to be in accordance with what itlandm seems to think is Darwinism, which appears to consist of "Me first, because that's *right*, and I'd be violating my beliefs to care about others!"
"Social Darwinists" Some uf apply the idea as it should be, if youre too fucking stupid to NOT lick the high voltage cables, then poof, youve been darwinated. If youre dumb enough to ride on top of the elevator, if you ignore the riptide, no swimming sign, if you dive in headfirst without checking if the pool is deep enough, i could go on and on...
The irony is only apparent when each of the two groups is seen from the opposite side. I notice that none of you denied the irony in the conservative camp. I am surprised that this journal has not one conservative reader willing to stand up for their values, but let's skip that for now. Perhaps they are quietly praying for me or something.
Know that seen from far enough to the right, all liberals are godless heathens who also happens to be moral relativists.
For the large part of the populace who honestly think that the source of moral behavior is transcendent, it remains a mystery why the rest is not always acting self-serving on the shortest possible timescale.
All of what you write makes sense, if one assumes that you know good from bad and prefers good. What puzzles a conservative is your motivation. As long as it is not your kids being shipped off, isn't their possible death a benefit for your selfish genes?
I notice that none of you denied the irony in the conservative camp.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The word you want is "hypocrisy", not irony.
I am surprised that this journal has not one conservative reader willing to stand up for their values, but let's skip that for now
It's got a bunch. However, since social darwinism is both indefensible AND not inherently a conservative value, but rather a hard-unthinking-right-wing value, none of them are willing to defend it.
Hint #1: You have conflated "conservative" with "Republican". This is wrong.
Hint #2: "right-wing" in the American sense and "Christian" in the "tries to do what Christ told you to" sense are completely, utterly, 100% incompatible.
it remains a mystery why the rest is not always acting self-serving on the shortest possible timescale.
Only to the intellectually vacuous.
For the reasonable part of the world, the statement "If the invisible sky fairy didn't threaten to hurt me for raping babies, I'd rape babies ALL THE TIME" is an outright admission of no less than two dangerous insanities.
What puzzles a conservative is your motivation. As long as it is not your kids being shipped off, isn't their possible death a benefit for your selfish genes?
What part of "evolution is a biological process, not a moral imperative" was unclear to you the first two hundred times, Magnus?
What part of "just because we know about gravity doesn't mean we think railings are a bad thing" did you not understand?
The ability of religious morons to deliberately ignore explanations and pretend that no answer to their thoroughly debunked asinine statements has ever been given is not my problem.
Babies are not sexy. I'd much prefer to rape drunk college girls. When I didn't do so even back when I had the chance, it was in no small part because I considered them to have VALUE as persons. If I considered them to have value only as vehicles for my genes, my conclusion might have been different.
Evolution as a description is non-controversial. It simply describes the manifestation of life in the material world. Evolution as explanation is controversial because it seems to eliminate the non-material dimension.
In other words, part of the drunk college girls exists in the same immaterial dimension as the Sky Fairy. If you eliminate the immaterial dimension, you don't just trow out the baby with the bathwater but also the college girls.
Millions of animals can't be wrong: The body is only useful for food or sex. If there is nothing besides the body, then any ethics can only be based on retribution.
The initial irony to which I referred was that people who claim that only the material realm is real, behave as if there is a non-material realm which is more important to them than the material.
Human freedom and human dignity are spiritual values. This certainly does not require belief in a personal deity, but it cannot be reduced to materialism either.
A conflict arises because the religious person requires everyone to accept his deity. The opposite conflict arises because the atheist requires everyone to accept that only the material realm exist. None of these are necessary. Each part could have accepted that the other person acted in good faith. It is obvious to me that you hold approximately the same values that I hold, even though I converse daily with my imaginary friend while you crazily believe that atoms can give rise to free will.
Millions of animals can't be wrong And they're not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Altruism_in_ethology_and_evolutionary_biology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
(sorry for the long links, theweaselking; I am way too tired to look up the html for hotlinks)
PS: You are also confusing "religious" with "extreme right-wing". The two do not inherently go together.
The actual factors that inform left/right movement are intelligence, education, and experience in the real world: As those three go up, you move away from extreme-right, regardless of your religious status. You move away from extreme-left, too, but that's not currently under this discussion because you're talking specifically about the Religious Reich.
> The irony is only apparent when each of the two groups is seen from the > opposite side.
No. The irony is only detectable on one side.
If one says "I believe that the statement 'Don't kill' is a reliable truth about what is morally correct," and then proceeds to go kill or have people killed, there is irony. They are behaving in a way that they have indicated they believe it is not correct to behave.
If someone says "I believe that the theory of evolution is a reliable truth about the physical world," and then proceeds to try to eliminate or mitigate its effect, there is no irony. Their statement isn't what they believe *should* be true, only what they think *is* true, so they can take it into account if/when they behave in a fashion which they think *is* morally correct.
reliable truth about what is morally correct does not automatically equal reliable truth about the physical world; to me, your comparison fails because while you depict irony in conservative behaviour, you don't in leftist behaviour.
> For the large part of the populace who honestly think that the source of > moral behavior is transcendent, it remains a mystery why the rest is not > always acting self-serving on the shortest possible timescale.
Are you saying that people who believe in a transcendent source of moral motivation (I won't say "behaviour"; that's part of the world, so a transcendent being couldn't touch it; however, humans can pattern their behaviour after theories about said moral being) think that people cannot adopt a moral framework with a different stated source?
That is a truly disheartening statement. I for one don't believe it. For anyone with the lack of empathy to believe it, I can see how there might be confusion as to how those with different beliefs can behave as kind or reasonable adults (as someone coming from there might have trouble seeing them as people, let alone sane).
I will note that any religion which considers the New Testament to be holy writ has a blatant acknowledgement that one does not have to recognize the Lord to work in accordance with Him. Perhaps those who believe the Bible and are confused by good behaviour in those who don't can simply consider it a mystery?
> All of what you write makes sense, if one assumes that you know good from > bad and prefers good. What puzzles a conservative is your motivation.
To be good.
Because it's good.
Because as a well-socialized human being with some consideration for others, the pain and suffering of other human beings is repugnant to me, and I believe it should be avoided.
See? And this is true and can be true whether or not I believe in a deity that is the source and essence of moral truth.
(I trust that no-one will be trotting out the tired old chestnut of "if you do this because you don't like to see people suffering, it means you're selfish, in spite of the fact that not wanting to see others suffer means you're not selfish! Look, I have mucked logic and definitions, and why are the people who know what the words mean looking pained and bored?" Yes? Good.)
> As long as it is not your kids being shipped off, isn't their possible > death a benefit for your selfish genes?
Sure, assuming I'm fertile. So what?
To think of the greatest good as being that of "my selfish genes" requires treating Charles Darwin's theory as not only a statement about the physical world, but an indicator of a morally correct way of doing things.
If you do not accept Darwin's theory as a statement of how things *should* be, morally speaking, there is no reason to treat its end result as a morally good thing.
Again, see "gravity". Do you find it ironic that people who believe in the theory of gravity do not run around objecting to banisters and balcony railings?
The "leftist" way of thought is self-contradictory in the eyes of my conservative friends. Their argument runs roughly like this: "The liberals say there is no god who takes an interest in human behavior. Why then do they always try to do social engineering? If we are only apes, how can we justify morality at all?"
To see evolution as purely descriptive, an account of life's history on earth, is not problematic for most monotheists. (The exception being those who for some obscure reason take the Genesis myth literally, and thus take the entire observable world as an illusion.)
The problem arises with the conclusion: Evolution fully explains all forms of life including the human consciousness. There is therefore no need for a non-material dimension to existence.
To the even vaguely spiritual person, the whole set of goodness, right and value lies in the non-material realm. To say that this realm does not exist is therefore to state that there is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no values and no prescribed behavior.
If we are only apes, how can we justify morality at all?"
To say that this realm does not exist is therefore to state that there is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no values and no prescribed behavior.
Magnus?
You're about three thousand years behind the times on this argument. Seriously.
Did you think nobody had ever thought that before?
Nobody had ever answered it?
Nobody had ever come up with a source of morality that wasn't "invisble sky fairies told me so?"
Seriously. You and they are ignoring THREE THOUSAND YEARS of human thought and argument, quite possibly more.
And as I said before, the ability of religious morons to deliberately ignore explanations and pretend that no answer to their thoroughly debunked asinine statements has ever been given is not my problem.
*Introductory* philosophy, man. Look into it.
To the even vaguely spiritual person, the whole set of goodness, right and value lies in the non-material realm.
Immanuel Kant called. He thinks you should be kicked in the balls.
Conversely, reducing religious thought to "invisible sky fairies told me so" is ignoring 3000 years of religious thought. This exact level of ignorance, and the way it is delivered, is what convinces so many people that you and people like you are utterly blind to anything not edible or copulable. I happen to know better, but you are not helping right here.
reducing religious thought to "invisible sky fairies told me so" is ignoring 3000 years of religious thought
More than that, actually, but it's not "ignoring" it, it's adressing and rejecting it as coming from a single critically flawed premise:
All religious thought stems from the premise of invisible sky fairies. "Given invisible sky fairies, what do they think about farming?" "Given invisible sky fairies, is divorce allowed?" "Given invisible sky fairies, how should I treat my neighbour?"
The only way religious thought can be useful is if you can successfully argue for the invisible sky fairies, or if you can demonstrate that, despite having no evidence for invisible sky fairies, the results you get from *assuming* invisible sky fairies match and predict the real world more closely than any other explanation you've got.
That first one has never been done. That second one hasn't been the case for centuries, ever since the radical notion of looking at the world *before* explaining it became fashionable.
Oh dear God. Where to begin? Buddhism (ca 2500 years old) is atheist, but deeply spiritual. Christianity (ca 2000 years old) claims that "the kingdom of Heaven is within you". Both of these build in part on older sources.
The whole "invisible sky fairies" is not only condescending, but a poor match to what theists try to describe. It is cartoon religion, and just as offensive as the cartoon materialism you will find on the Religious Wrong.
"The liberals say there is no god who takes an interest in human behavior. Why then do they always try to do social engineering? If we are only apes, how can we justify morality at all?"
Because it works better than the war of all against all.
Because treating each other decently is a positive sum game in its own right.
Because "might makes right" expends a lot more energy on maintaining might than it does on accomplishing anything.
Because societies that throw away ethics (like those German neo-cons in the Thirties) demonstrably fail at providing long term gains.
Because living well and doing good doesn't have to be motivated by a Big Bad Daddy and his Invisible Reward/Punish system.
-- Steve's pounding his head on the wall again. Dammit, Kant, where are you today?
> The "leftist" way of thought is self-contradictory in the eyes of my > conservative friends. Their argument runs roughly like this: > "The liberals say there is no god who takes an interest in human behavior.
Your friends might want to actually go out and meet a more representative sample of liberals. I assure you that religion and liberal political beliefs are in no way incompatible. So they are operating from a flawed premise.
> "Why then do they always try to do social engineering?
You do realize that you are suggesting that your conservative friends cannot comprehend that one don't need to believe that someone/thing watching what one does in order to choose a particular course of action, right?
> "If we are only apes, how can we justify morality at all?"
"To justify" (in this context) means to prove to be true and thus correct (usually with practical or moral overtones).
If your friends are wondering how someone who doesn't believe in a god can justify classifying actions within a moral framework, then the answer is simple; looking at actions, consequences, intentions, probabilities, adherence to ideals that have been accepted, all that good stuff.
If your friends are wondering how someone who doesn't believe in a god are can make a decision as to what is the correct morality, then the answer is probably "assessing the various frameworks and statements which are presented to you as truths, and selecting the one which you judge to be most reasonable and correct."
(I will note that "assessing the various frameworks and statements which are presented to you as truths, and selecting the one which you judge to be most reasonable and correct" is also the process by which one comes to a religion or a god. I hope that any of your conservative friends who are also religious are able to empathize with that, despite the lack of empathy you have suggested.)
> To the even vaguely spiritual person, the whole set of goodness, right and > value lies in the non-material realm.
Surely. That is why you can grind the whole physical universe down to its component parts and not find one atom of the substances known as Justice or Truth.
Anyone who is dealing with abstract values is operating within their conception of the non-material realm.
> To say that this realm does not exist is therefore to state that there is > no right or wrong, no good or bad, no values and no prescribed behavior.
I agree with this statement.
But to say that a god does not exist is not to say that there is no non-material realm. It is merely to say that moral ideals are not embodied in a transcendent awareness, not that they do not exist.
To go from "These people do not believe that goodness comes from the same source that I believe it comes from" to "These people cannot believe in goodness" is a logical flaw (not to mention quite indicative of the lack of empathy I mentioned earlier).
Perhaps you can try explaining this to your conservative friends.
Addendum: > The problem arises with the conclusion: Evolution fully explains all forms > of life including the human consciousness.
This conclusion is flawed; it equates knowing under what circumstances something arises (to wit, consciousness) to fully comprehending the nature of that thing.
The theory of evolution does not do that, and it does not purport to do that. It simply outlines factors that affect breeding choices in organisms, and the outcome of these breeding choices on speciation.
> There is therefore no need for a non-material dimension to existence.
There is no need for a non-material dimension to existence in order to explain that particular aspect of the physical world addressed by the theory of evolution.
This is completely different from there being no need for a non-material dimension if people wish to assume the existence of abstract values.
Hi. Liberal who believes in "invisible sky fairies". Please stop assuming that political beliefs and religious beliefs are the same thing. Its possible to be A: athiest and B: conservative. I've met more than a few...
Also accepting the provable evidence of theorems like gravity or evolution in NO WAY alters my FAITH in a higher power. Please stop being on my side in any way. Thank you...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 02:27 am (UTC)In addition to the one featured there, there's one with a girl convincing her parents it'll be easier to become a doctor if she spends time as a nurse in the army, and a third one with a Hispanic boy talking about what a good opportunity it is for people like him.
All of them make me a little sick.
-K
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:54 am (UTC)I can see it now: a vast leftist movement to lower the recruiting age to prepubesence, and a new Children's Crusade.
It occurs to me that I've not usually seen any people that I think of as leftists or who self-identify as such running around yelling "No-one with a hereditary condition should benefit from health care! Having a social safety net is a terrible idea that contravenes the natural order--just like dentistry and soap! Those with wealth and power are superior! Goddammit, *it's wrong to let those icky poor or disabled genes into our precious population!*"
But then I see no irony in believing both that scientific theory is true and believing that perhaps it is worth it to try and prevent certain outcomes that can be predicted through said theory. I mean, would you consider it *ironic* for someone who believes in the theory of gravity to think banisters or balcony railings are a good idea?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 06:07 am (UTC)I fucking hate "Social Darwinists".
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 10:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 10:26 pm (UTC)Some uf apply the idea as it should be, if youre too fucking stupid to NOT lick the high voltage cables, then poof, youve been darwinated. If youre dumb enough to ride on top of the elevator, if you ignore the riptide, no swimming sign, if you dive in headfirst without checking if the pool is deep enough, i could go on and on...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 03:33 pm (UTC)Know that seen from far enough to the right, all liberals are godless heathens who also happens to be moral relativists.
For the large part of the populace who honestly think that the source of moral behavior is transcendent, it remains a mystery why the rest is not always acting self-serving on the shortest possible timescale.
All of what you write makes sense, if one assumes that you know good from bad and prefers good. What puzzles a conservative is your motivation. As long as it is not your kids being shipped off, isn't their possible death a benefit for your selfish genes?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 03:55 pm (UTC)You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The word you want is "hypocrisy", not irony.
I am surprised that this journal has not one conservative reader willing to stand up for their values, but let's skip that for now
It's got a bunch. However, since social darwinism is both indefensible AND not inherently a conservative value, but rather a hard-unthinking-right-wing value, none of them are willing to defend it.
Hint #1: You have conflated "conservative" with "Republican". This is wrong.
Hint #2: "right-wing" in the American sense and "Christian" in the "tries to do what Christ told you to" sense are completely, utterly, 100% incompatible.
it remains a mystery why the rest is not always acting self-serving on the shortest possible timescale.
Only to the intellectually vacuous.
For the reasonable part of the world, the statement "If the invisible sky fairy didn't threaten to hurt me for raping babies, I'd rape babies ALL THE TIME" is an outright admission of no less than two dangerous insanities.
What puzzles a conservative is your motivation. As long as it is not your kids being shipped off, isn't their possible death a benefit for your selfish genes?
What part of "evolution is a biological process, not a moral imperative" was unclear to you the first two hundred times, Magnus?
What part of "just because we know about gravity doesn't mean we think railings are a bad thing" did you not understand?
The ability of religious morons to deliberately ignore explanations and pretend that no answer to their thoroughly debunked asinine statements has ever been given is not my problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:36 pm (UTC)Evolution as a description is non-controversial. It simply describes the manifestation of life in the material world. Evolution as explanation is controversial because it seems to eliminate the non-material dimension.
In other words, part of the drunk college girls exists in the same immaterial dimension as the Sky Fairy. If you eliminate the immaterial dimension, you don't just trow out the baby with the bathwater but also the college girls.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:41 pm (UTC)Can you at least see why this fails to impress?
Evolution as explanation is controversial because it seems to eliminate the non-material dimension.
It doesn't eliminate it. It proves it unnecessary. The two are different.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 06:03 pm (UTC)The initial irony to which I referred was that people who claim that only the material realm is real, behave as if there is a non-material realm which is more important to them than the material.
Human freedom and human dignity are spiritual values. This certainly does not require belief in a personal deity, but it cannot be reduced to materialism either.
A conflict arises because the religious person requires everyone to accept his deity. The opposite conflict arises because the atheist requires everyone to accept that only the material realm exist. None of these are necessary. Each part could have accepted that the other person acted in good faith. It is obvious to me that you hold approximately the same values that I hold, even though I converse daily with my imaginary friend while you crazily believe that atoms can give rise to free will.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-28 09:49 am (UTC)And they're not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Altruism_in_ethology_and_evolutionary_biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
(sorry for the long links, theweaselking; I am way too tired to look up the html for hotlinks)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:10 pm (UTC)The actual factors that inform left/right movement are intelligence, education, and experience in the real world: As those three go up, you move away from extreme-right, regardless of your religious status. You move away from extreme-left, too, but that's not currently under this discussion because you're talking specifically about the Religious Reich.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:47 pm (UTC)> opposite side.
No. The irony is only detectable on one side.
If one says "I believe that the statement 'Don't kill' is a reliable truth about what is morally correct," and then proceeds to go kill or have people killed, there is irony. They are behaving in a way that they have indicated they believe it is not correct to behave.
If someone says "I believe that the theory of evolution is a reliable truth about the physical world," and then proceeds to try to eliminate or mitigate its effect, there is no irony. Their statement isn't what they believe *should* be true, only what they think *is* true, so they can take it into account if/when they behave in a fashion which they think *is* morally correct.
reliable truth about what is morally correct does not automatically equal reliable truth about the physical world; to me, your comparison fails because while you depict irony in conservative behaviour, you don't in leftist behaviour.
> For the large part of the populace who honestly think that the source of
> moral behavior is transcendent, it remains a mystery why the rest is not
> always acting self-serving on the shortest possible timescale.
Are you saying that people who believe in a transcendent source of moral motivation (I won't say "behaviour"; that's part of the world, so a transcendent being couldn't touch it; however, humans can pattern their behaviour after theories about said moral being) think that people cannot adopt a moral framework with a different stated source?
That is a truly disheartening statement. I for one don't believe it. For anyone with the lack of empathy to believe it, I can see how there might be confusion as to how those with different beliefs can behave as kind or reasonable adults (as someone coming from there might have trouble seeing them as people, let alone sane).
I will note that any religion which considers the New Testament to be holy writ has a blatant acknowledgement that one does not have to recognize the Lord to work in accordance with Him. Perhaps those who believe the Bible and are confused by good behaviour in those who don't can simply consider it a mystery?
> All of what you write makes sense, if one assumes that you know good from
> bad and prefers good. What puzzles a conservative is your motivation.
To be good.
Because it's good.
Because as a well-socialized human being with some consideration for others, the pain and suffering of other human beings is repugnant to me, and I believe it should be avoided.
See? And this is true and can be true whether or not I believe in a deity that is the source and essence of moral truth.
(I trust that no-one will be trotting out the tired old chestnut of "if you do this because you don't like to see people suffering, it means you're selfish, in spite of the fact that not wanting to see others suffer means you're not selfish! Look, I have mucked logic and definitions, and why are the people who know what the words mean looking pained and bored?" Yes? Good.)
> As long as it is not your kids being shipped off, isn't their possible
> death a benefit for your selfish genes?
Sure, assuming I'm fertile. So what?
To think of the greatest good as being that of "my selfish genes" requires treating Charles Darwin's theory as not only a statement about the physical world, but an indicator of a morally correct way of doing things.
If you do not accept Darwin's theory as a statement of how things *should* be, morally speaking, there is no reason to treat its end result as a morally good thing.
Again, see "gravity". Do you find it ironic that people who believe in the theory of gravity do not run around objecting to banisters and balcony railings?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:21 pm (UTC)"The liberals say there is no god who takes an interest in human behavior. Why then do they always try to do social engineering? If we are only apes, how can we justify morality at all?"
To see evolution as purely descriptive, an account of life's history on earth, is not problematic for most monotheists. (The exception being those who for some obscure reason take the Genesis myth literally, and thus take the entire observable world as an illusion.)
The problem arises with the conclusion: Evolution fully explains all forms of life including the human consciousness. There is therefore no need for a non-material dimension to existence.
To the even vaguely spiritual person, the whole set of goodness, right and value lies in the non-material realm. To say that this realm does not exist is therefore to state that there is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no values and no prescribed behavior.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:37 pm (UTC)To say that this realm does not exist is therefore to state that there is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no values and no prescribed behavior.
Magnus?
You're about three thousand years behind the times on this argument. Seriously.
Did you think nobody had ever thought that before?
Nobody had ever answered it?
Nobody had ever come up with a source of morality that wasn't "invisble sky fairies told me so?"
Seriously. You and they are ignoring THREE THOUSAND YEARS of human thought and argument, quite possibly more.
And as I said before, the ability of religious morons to deliberately ignore explanations and pretend that no answer to their thoroughly debunked asinine statements has ever been given is not my problem.
*Introductory* philosophy, man. Look into it.
To the even vaguely spiritual person, the whole set of goodness, right and value lies in the non-material realm.
Immanuel Kant called. He thinks you should be kicked in the balls.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:59 pm (UTC)More than that, actually, but it's not "ignoring" it, it's adressing and rejecting it as coming from a single critically flawed premise:
All religious thought stems from the premise of invisible sky fairies. "Given invisible sky fairies, what do they think about farming?"
"Given invisible sky fairies, is divorce allowed?"
"Given invisible sky fairies, how should I treat my neighbour?"
The only way religious thought can be useful is if you can successfully argue for the invisible sky fairies, or if you can demonstrate that, despite having no evidence for invisible sky fairies, the results you get from *assuming* invisible sky fairies match and predict the real world more closely than any other explanation you've got.
That first one has never been done. That second one hasn't been the case for centuries, ever since the radical notion of looking at the world *before* explaining it became fashionable.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 06:16 pm (UTC)Buddhism (ca 2500 years old) is atheist, but deeply spiritual. Christianity (ca 2000 years old) claims that "the kingdom of Heaven is within you". Both of these build in part on older sources.
The whole "invisible sky fairies" is not only condescending, but a poor match to what theists try to describe. It is cartoon religion, and just as offensive as the cartoon materialism you will find on the Religious Wrong.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:46 pm (UTC)Because it works better than the war of all against all.
Because treating each other decently is a positive sum game in its own right.
Because "might makes right" expends a lot more energy on maintaining might than it does on accomplishing anything.
Because societies that throw away ethics (like those German neo-cons in the Thirties) demonstrably fail at providing long term gains.
Because living well and doing good doesn't have to be motivated by a Big Bad Daddy and his Invisible Reward/Punish system.
-- Steve's pounding his head on the wall again. Dammit, Kant, where are you today?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:55 pm (UTC)> conservative friends. Their argument runs roughly like this:
> "The liberals say there is no god who takes an interest in human behavior.
Your friends might want to actually go out and meet a more representative sample of liberals. I assure you that religion and liberal political beliefs are in no way incompatible. So they are operating from a flawed premise.
> "Why then do they always try to do social engineering?
You do realize that you are suggesting that your conservative friends cannot comprehend that one don't need to believe that someone/thing watching what one does in order to choose a particular course of action, right?
> "If we are only apes, how can we justify morality at all?"
"To justify" (in this context) means to prove to be true and thus correct (usually with practical or moral overtones).
If your friends are wondering how someone who doesn't believe in a god can justify classifying actions within a moral framework, then the answer is simple; looking at actions, consequences, intentions, probabilities, adherence to ideals that have been accepted, all that good stuff.
If your friends are wondering how someone who doesn't believe in a god are can make a decision as to what is the correct morality, then the answer is probably "assessing the various frameworks and statements which are presented to you as truths, and selecting the one which you judge to be most reasonable and correct."
(I will note that "assessing the various frameworks and statements which are presented to you as truths, and selecting the one which you judge to be most reasonable and correct" is also the process by which one comes to a religion or a god. I hope that any of your conservative friends who are also religious are able to empathize with that, despite the lack of empathy you have suggested.)
> To the even vaguely spiritual person, the whole set of goodness, right and
> value lies in the non-material realm.
Surely. That is why you can grind the whole physical universe down to its component parts and not find one atom of the substances known as Justice or Truth.
Anyone who is dealing with abstract values is operating within their conception of the non-material realm.
> To say that this realm does not exist is therefore to state that there is
> no right or wrong, no good or bad, no values and no prescribed behavior.
I agree with this statement.
But to say that a god does not exist is not to say that there is no non-material realm. It is merely to say that moral ideals are not embodied in a transcendent awareness, not that they do not exist.
To go from "These people do not believe that goodness comes from the same source that I believe it comes from" to "These people cannot believe in goodness" is a logical flaw (not to mention quite indicative of the lack of empathy I mentioned earlier).
Perhaps you can try explaining this to your conservative friends.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 06:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 06:16 pm (UTC)> The problem arises with the conclusion: Evolution fully explains all forms
> of life including the human consciousness.
This conclusion is flawed; it equates knowing under what circumstances something arises (to wit, consciousness) to fully comprehending the nature of that thing.
The theory of evolution does not do that, and it does not purport to do that. It simply outlines factors that affect breeding choices in organisms, and the outcome of these breeding choices on speciation.
> There is therefore no need for a non-material dimension to existence.
There is no need for a non-material dimension to existence in order to explain that particular aspect of the physical world addressed by the theory of evolution.
This is completely different from there being no need for a non-material dimension if people wish to assume the existence of abstract values.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-28 10:05 am (UTC)Also accepting the provable evidence of theorems like gravity or evolution in NO WAY alters my FAITH in a higher power. Please stop being on my side in any way. Thank you...