So many wrong ideas. I wish you'd just respond with one post so I can deal with them as they come along...
Post 1: And if I said that invisible rays are heating my food inside my magic box, you'd rightly think I was insane... Except for the fact that those invisible rays actually exist and heat my food. Simply because your senses cannot perceive something is not confirmation that it does not exist.
Post 2: Actually, no, communism CANNOT WORK, even if human nature changed. The reason is the problem of scarcity of information. Even if everyone were altruistic and only working for the good of other people, the communists would still starve if they had to rely on themselves for food. This is because a system where resources are decided not by the profit structure, but by "need" ends up misallocating resources because while price instantaneously transfers relevant information about the need for resources, "greatest need" decisions cannot spread that information. The reason capitalism is superior to all others is because the information about needs and wants is transmitted in the most effective fashion. Read "The Fatal Conceit" by Hayek.
Post 3: YOU may think that "secular morality" is capable of standing on its own because you like the way it works, but the founding fathers would disagree with you on the sustainability of a morality based outside of religion (and, they would argue, specifically the Christian religion).
Post 4: Yeah... and Germany and Japan were going to crush us in the 80's. Before that it was Russia. Before that it was someone else. Many people have predicted that fall of the United States and capitalism. Until we kill ourselves with socialism, all these other countries will look AMAZING in growth because they have so far to catch up. Once they are near to our technology, guess who will continue to drive progress? Yeah, the US. No other country in the world drives progress. So, when the Democrats finally succeed in killing the market, the world will either free their markets or descend into another Dark Age.
1: The obvious answer is that microwaves can be proven, detected and tested.
2: That might be, I admit I am not terribly familiar with communism. But even in my post I listed reasons why it would not work, so I do not necessarily disagree with you, I simply wanted to point out that other systems of governance work. Is China a communist country, by your definition? If so, how much longer does it need to be a first world country before it can be said to have succeeded? If China is not Communist enough, I can think of another example, let me know.
3: Many cultures do extremely well without Christian morality, so even if the founding fathers did think Christian morality was somehow superior, I guess I would have to disagree with them. Plus, although I have not done any research on the topic, I imagine the founding fathers were rather more diverse in their religion than you seem to be implicating.
4: Again, so your point is that the evidence that Christian morality is effective, is because of American dominance? And you really think that as long as America is over 50% Protestant Christian, it will remain so? Really? I just want clarification. If that is your position, I will respond to it.
1. Pardon me for not being particularly impressed, since that is roughly equivalent to behavior displayed by the cleverer non-human mammals, none of which have anything we would call a moral code.
Mash the bar, get a tasty food pellet. Pee on the carpet, get whacked with a rolled up newspaper. Negotiate the maze, get the hunk of cheese.
2. I wonder, if you were clever enough to manage it without detection or repercussion, would not your self-interested code allow for murder for profit? Or perhaps rape of children in a Thailand sex-tourism all-inclusive package, if interested in sexual gratification?
I don't care what you say to it, as it was just one more example of someone without a wholly materialist philosophy who is effective in empirical pursuits.
So you have two points here. One of them is unless people know the scientific function of every object around them, they might as well believe in magic...and the other is that if someone uses a phrase common in their culture that has to do with religion, they must be closeted believers. I don't buy it.
3. Point one is better stated, "The vast majority of people operate on faith, including those that claim to reject faith."
4. Point two was more about the second sentence. The belief by an atheist that his difficulty with technology lies not in his lack of understanding, but that they have some undefinable quality that stymies his use of them.
1. I do think human beings are animals, so that idea is not insulting to me. But, having said that, your example is too simple, because it only examines short term rewards and punishments.
2. I suppose it would be. But the truth is that will never be a realistic scenario, at least in the modern world. There are too many long term negatives, and no guarantee of safety. The main long term negative is the possibility that I would be made a sex worker, or my children would, or I would be killed outright. Such a society cannot exist if things are continued on a large scale. On a small scale, things like that already happen, and it typically damages the parent society.
3. In America at least, you are probably correct. I don't see how it matters though, because I am claiming to have investigated my beliefs. Either you can take that at face value, or not.
4: I do not claim to be a cold, emotionless engine of logic and reason, any more than you claim to be a holy man who is directed in every conscious thought by his love of God. His phrase was a commonly used American term. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Mellestad,
When you post a reply, but you want to quote multiple replies, scroll down and find them. On the right of the page it says, in blue, "insert quote". It will insert them in whatever order you click on them. Newest replies are at the top.
Neat, thanks!
What makes you think humans are so much better now? Now is really no different than before. Human understanding of natural laws may be better, but humans haven't changed a bit.
Good question, I had not thought about that much, this might be an interesting point to pursue!
On an individual level I think there are a few reasons. Increased communication, decline in ethnocentric thought, increased scientific literacy, and the simple fact that the decline of religion has not shown a similar decrease in stability. Is everyone ready for a secular moral system? I doubt it. Many people probably just want to coast through moral questions without thinking about them objectively. But I think the world has been moving in that direction, America included. I just don't see that as inherently negative. I'll have to think about that more!
1. Which is why "modern secular morality" isn't. A system of morality, that is. Doing what's best for me is hardly a system of morality, even if it might roughly correspond to some moral systems. Or if it is one, it's down-right terrifying. "Enlightened self-interest" can be pressed into the service of any number of barbaric causes. Euthanizing the elderly, sterilizing the undesirable, and so on. And we haven't begun to establish who gets to be in the "community." Do we enslave, segregate or eliminate "sub-human" races, for example. How about embryos? Are we looking out for them, too?
I'm NOT saying you're a racist, or in favor any of the above policies. I'm just pointing out the flexibility of the system.
2. You were talking about which explanation "makes more sense." I thought you were talking about which made more sense to any objective observer. I didn't realize you were talking about your own personal opinion.
3. Before we go on; please note that there is a difference between arguing for a particular point of view, and having a discussion about the differences between two points of view. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to believe in creationism; just talking about it. For my own part, I realized some time ago that I had never given evolutionary theory a fair chance. I'm trying to keep my skepticism in check until I can study it more.
4. It's very simple. The widespread belief in some form of intelligent design, both historically and in the present-day, amply demonstrates that it is the more intuitive explanation. Even many of those who believe in (some aspects of) evolutionary theory also believe it was guided by some unseen hand. If religious explanations weren't so easy to believe, humans wouldn't have been making them for thousands of years.
Besides, the old saw about finding a watch/car/computer in the middle of the wilderness. When we see a complex system, we expect to find an intelligence behind it.
5. Didn't say it was a good analogy; just said it was popular.
1. Those are all great questions! One of the dangers I eluded to earlier was that you can use moral relativism to create some very scary scenarios! But most of these fail to analyze long term ramifacations. For example, if we kill the old, we get killed when we are old. Not exactly brilliant selfish thought is it? For most of your points, I can't really think of what societal good they would accomplish, so what reason would a honest secular moralist have for taking those actions? Everything you listed has been done in the name of religion at one time or another...but I don't blame religion. I blame dogmatism and ethnocentrism. In the long run, if you have the resources to support those people, they will probably be a positive contribution to society. I don't have any problem with using embryos for science. The human body aborts embryos all the time. Women constantly lose eggs, and men sperm. At what point do I think you need to begin protection? I had not thought about that terribly much. Probably about the third trimester, or when the child is viable and has active higher brain function. (Edit: But that is certainly worth more consideration on my part!)
Now, in the cold, hard calculus of survival, the old would die first. The undesirable would not be allowed to breed. If a society has to choose between the young and healthy and the old and disabled, the young and healthy always win. Luckily, most first world countries can absorb the extra burden of care...which is desirable to me because I will likely join their ranks before I die.
2. I was talking about observers who were actually interested in the topic, and wanted to analyze the issue in depth. Someone who is not interested will simply follow the ideas they were taught as a child, secular or religious, and so their opinion is not terribly useful.
3. I appreciate your candor.
4. Here is some food for thought, from wikipedia (all information is cited in the article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends Summary: Support for young earth creationism among Life Science and Earth Science professionals is under 1%. Even according to studies funded by religious institutions, there are only some 600 confirmed life and earth science professionals that believe in creationism, out of one million total in the United States. The rest support evolutionary theory, divinely created or not.
5. Again, I appreciate your honesty.
