Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents

[Iain]

Straw man. I don't know of any serious Christian theologians or professors that advocate not seeking scientific truth.
I don't know of any Christians that think that way either. Painting Christians as Luddites is a common argument devised to make Christians seem a quaint throwback to less enlightened times.

It's not a straw man at all, ironically you've set up the argument you wish to knock down not me. I've at no point called Christians luddites or argued that they hold back scientific progress. I'm suggesting that the teleological argument relies on that which we do not understand, and that which we do not understand has shrunk. So for years the best explanation for something would have been that 'this is how it has always been' or 'God made it thus', but as science has moved on, with the help of some Christian individuals, that area of the 'unknowable' has shrunk from being most everything.

I'm concerned that this has the potential to be taken too personally. I'm merely discussing the idea that we can see evidence of God all around us, I happen not to be a Christian, but this is not a personal crusade of mine either. Just a line of internet discussion that I promised I had given up some time ago.

We may have created a more 'moral' system than Arapho Indians, but that is partly in our own estimation, an estimation which I do not disagree with.

Translated: I am a god deciding what is good and evil.

Pretty much yeah. I have generally determined what I believe to be good. That isn't a claim to be god though, it's a claim that in the absence of god I have made the best of the moral teachings that religion has given me. If you don't believe in god then you're left with the idea that all moral teachings, religious or otherwise, were devised by man. Where they cause no harm, and are in fact good for nearly all concerned then that is largely irrelevant, Prisoner's Dilemma stuff in a way. I'm suggesting that Christian morality and ideas about the worth of individuals have a validity aside from religious implications..

We're dotting about a bit so back to 'argument by design'...

Incomplete understanding of how God works does not mean you should assume He doesn't exist. It merely means that you do not understand His workings.

It's clearly a sterile argument. Although I'm a bit confused by the logic of this statement, clearly it has internal logic, but I'm not sure that it logically fits with the rest of this discussion. I'm discussing not making assumptions that all we see around us is the product of divine design, you're predicating your statement that we don't understand God on a belief in God.

We are to trust the new high priests motives and their scientific method as if their belief system would not inform the way they interpret the facts. We are not to challenge their findings or motives because they alone are on an altruistic search for the truth. We are to believe that science alone is not defiled by the basest motivation to exert power over others.  Really, the scientific community really isn't comprised of elitists who want to guide the human race to it's next level of evolution.

I'm sure it's not lost on you that this whole statement can be turned right around onto religion.

[Guest]

Longtime lurker, thought I'd throw my hat into the ring (No good can come of that).

The problem I see in both science and religion is that the only way they address the issue of creation is by pushing the question back another "level". With Religion, "God did it" , with science "It was the big-bang". This solves nothing. It just redefines the begining, then uses the new meaning to explain the step just after what was called the begining until a few moments ago. (explanation is a little (lot) ugly, but I am not that eloquent) If we say that God did it, then from where did God come? That is now the redefined begining (what we are after). In science, where was the material used in the big-bang? That is science's new begining (previously the big-bang). In both cases, the only explination that makes sense to me is that something has existed forever. I, however do not want to belive that. Thinking tells me that it is right, feeling tells me that it is wrong. In cases like this, I always side with my brain.

Now, let's rename that matter from the big-bang God. From that perspective, Science is religion (or vice versa if you prefer). Both "God"s have existed forever, created the universe, and all that is in it, designed all life, added sentience, etc.  "God" is also in everything to boot. Now the Gaia crew is happpy. On to the next topic.

@ GoRon:
>Translated: I am a god deciding what is good and evil.

In a word: Yes. What is wrong with that?
I only experience life through me, I don't see why I should dwell on other people's opinions. Thinking about them is good, if you agree with said opinion, more power to you. On the other hand, if someone thinks you evil, so what? If you think yourself evil, then and only then do you have a problem. Why should another's morality interest me? All I ask is that you try to leave me be, regardless of what you think of me. If you decide that I am too "bad" and must be stopped (or something to that effect), then try (And would you care that I disagree with what you are doing?). I'll try to do the same for you.

"Good" and "Bad" are subjective.

In case you can't tell, I'm agnostic.
Hope I didn't bother anyone too badly.

Cheers,
Scott

(Do me a favor and ignore any spelling/gramatical errors.)

[Ron]

I'm concerned that this has the potential to be taken too personally. I'm merely discussing the idea that we can see evidence of God all around us, I happen not to be a Christian, but this is not a personal crusade of mine either. Just a line of Internet discussion that I promised I had given up some time ago.

Hi Ian!  I almost put a disclaimer in my previous post that I wasn't directing my post at you personally but was using your post as a springboard to some of my thoughts.

I'm sure it's not lost on you that this whole statement can be turned right around onto religion.

That was the point of the statement and the one before it where I plugged religious words into a statement you made.

I am afraid many have discarded one religion and have adopted science as another. They don't even realize the "faith' they put into their new religion because it hides it's assumptions behind fancy theories that are generally accepted as fact.

"Good" and "Bad" are subjective.

And up is down, black is white and we all are one.
Only someone who lives in a culture that insulates its people from the harshest aspects of life can make such a statement.
Welcome to APS Scott!

[Guest]

@GoRon
I think you took it a little differently than I meant. (Poor choice of words on my part) I did not mean that there is no good and evil, or that I do not consider things to be good and evil. I only mean to say that I judge things to be good or evil based on my own morality. What I think is good another may think is evil. Now, their opinion means very little  to me, but they are equally conviced of their correctness. Each person sees good and evil as absolute, and yet the preception is not common to all people.

Good and bad depend on the observer may be a better way to communicate the idea.

Cheers,
Scott

[Perd Hapley]

If we say that God did it, then from where did God come?

To a Christian, and I suppose also to a Jew, this question makes no sense, because we believe that God simply exists.  He, eternally, is.  That is why He identified himself to Moses as "I Am" (Yahweh). That is His name.  He need not and cannot come from anywhere or anything, as He is Uncaused Cause and Unmoved Mover.  He needs no cause, as He is not an effect.  So at least that is the Christian answer.

>Translated: I am a god deciding what is good and evil.

In a word: Yes. What is wrong with that?

You may certainly make up your own mind on Good and Evil, but you don't think you're a god, do you?

[Scott]

>To a Christian, and I suppose also to a Jew, this question makes no sense, because we believe that God simply exists...

If we assume that a god can simply exist, then, it would seem to me, the same could be applied to the universe. This would solve one of science's largest problems. I guess it wouldn't be science if a "fact" were merely declared to be, without testing, though.

As previously established, I'm unsure as to what I think in this field.


>You may certainly make up your own mind on Good and Evil, but you don't think you're a god, do you?
Only in terms of good and evil. As far as I know, I am not omnipotent.
(Given the way words can be twisted, though, I might be able to get away with calling myself a god)
Edit: the above line was also added

Cheers,
Scott

[Perd Hapley]

If I am correctly informed, the eternal-universe model is no longer considered scientifically viable, but I don't keep current on such things.

Yes, the word god can have many uses.

[Scott]

Yes, science kind of limits itself I'm afraid.

Cheers,
Scott

[richyoung]

To believe in evolution as a cause of speciation is as silly as beleiveing that a box of spare clockwork parts can be put in a can, the can secured to a paint shaker, and that if you leave the paint shaker running long enough, you will  eventually get a perfectly formed Rolex.  To believe in evolution as the CAUSE of life, same scenario, except the paint shaker can is full of copper, iron and tin ores, and is on fire and being hit by lightning.  The works of the Great Architect are all around us  - some choose not to see.

[roo_ster]

Contemporary secular types who try to reason their way to TUHR get tripped up by words that are burdened by western/christian morality

The thought occurs to me that all this may be true, that jfruser's TUHR may entirely stem from christian beliefs. Does that in fact lead us to conclude that this value system is actually based on any universal truths?

Howdy from Texas, Iain!

Disclosure:  I am a practicing Christian (I hope I get it right, some day).

So, from my POV, TUHR are based on universal truths: human life has value in and of itself, diginity of man, etc.  These, at their foundation are based on articles of faith:
1. We are made in God's image
2. We are equal before him
3. etc cetera...

But faith is what makes the wicket so sticky: no matter how much logic, reason, and empiricism a Christian may marshall; at the base of it all is his faith.  

Well-reasoned arguments can be made for expedience, erecting circumstances where much more "good" can be served by violating TUHR.  (Classic example: Man who is certainly guilty of placing, and certainly knows the location of, a ticking time bomb.  He won't talk, despite using all sorts of acceptable and controversial methods intended for those know to be guilty.  The guy does have family, who happen to be completely innocent of this matter, but who's torture likely will free guilty man's tongue...)  Well, a man who by faith holds that innocent life ought to be held blameless and unharmed...can not be "reasoned" into agreeing that the aforementioned scenario is right.  Intentionally harming or killing the innocent is an evil act, plain & simple.

From a survival strategy POV, the question, "What will improve my chances of living to breed and pass on my genes?" is amoral.  Sometimes it is best to cooperate & play nice.  Sometimes it is best to whack Bob on the head out behind the privy to eliminate the competition for females.  The answer to the classic "ticking time bomb" question above is a hearty "yes," and doubly so if one of your progeny is endangered by the bomb.  No universal truths beyond "survive to breed."

From a practical outcomes as seen in the world POV, universal truths regarding human rights can not be deduced.  Vile treatment of fellow humans is the rule, not the exception for most people on this planet.  

I do not think the wholly secular person can come to accept TUHR without resorting to faith of some sort.  Western Civ's values (if not practices, at times) are grounded in J-C morality.  The substitute gods or faiths erected to mimic J-C demands to treat fellow humans with some modicum of respect are pretty thin gruel and have already been shot full of holes by the marxists and fascists.  Today, we promote and reward  the most amoral of "ethicists" to the top bioethics posts in our most prestigious universities who have even weaker trumped-up faith and reason to the logical conclusion:
I detect no concept of TUHR from Peter Singer.  For him, being self-aware is a prerequisite for humane treatment.  (That requirement is, itself, an article of faith: it is not right to harm the self-aware).

I guess my conclusion is that the secularist will reason (absent faith) that there are no moral obstacles to their will to power.

[roo_ster]

>If we assume that a god can simply exist, then, it would seem to me, the same could be applied to the universe. This would solve one of science's largest problems. I guess it wouldn't be science if a "fact" were merely declared to be, without testing, though.

Assuming the "universe is" is little different from the Old Testament, "I am."

Third person vs firts person faith.

[griz]

I do not think the wholly secular person can come to accept TUHR without resorting to faith of some sort.  Western Civ's values (if not practices, at times) are grounded in J-C morality

I must disagree with your conclusions.
Throughout time people of various religions have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion.  They typically justified this by saying that is what their g-d or g-ds wanted them to do.  So if TUHR are based on faith based religions, why do the actions of believers sometimes veer from TUHR?  You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith.  My contention is it does not require faith in a higher power to realize your highest right is your own life, and from that reason that others should be entitled to that same right and more.  That should sound a lot like the golden rule, and indeed most religions world wide have independently claimed that principle as their own.

And if Western Civs values are so engrained, why are they not more universal?  On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion, and others who do not believe non-citizens in this country have rights.  How did they avoid learning about the concept of TUHR if they were grounded in J-C morality?

[Iain]

Just initial thoughts in response to your post jfruser.

Morality is a tough one. Perhaps all our religion stems from a basic need to instill certain values in society. You suggest that in the absence of religion then the realisation occurs that nothing prevents the strong from abuse of the weak, and whilst that is true I return to something I made a reference to earlier - the Prisoners Dilemma.

Which makes it a subjective morality of course, and that leads us to some unpleasant conclusions and I don't like it. On the other hand I'm left thinking that the idea that there is an absolute morality is a little too convenient. Perhaps the idea of recognising that rights are inherent in all men, that all men are created with such rights is a convenient way of expressing that we all hold these truths to be self-evident and as long as we can enfore their self-evidence then they continue to exist.

There was, and is for some, a stick and a carrot to christian morality. That works whilst people believe in it. I don't but that hasn't changed my moral perspective greatly because there is a rational conclusion to be drawn that whilst that system exists then the majority of the time the outcome will be the best possible for individuals and society, but that an individuals rights are of great importance. In answer to your scenario I'll say that I believe the first series of '24' contained a similar situation, and the mere thought of violating one person in such a way (to death in this fictional instance if I recall) is abhorrent to me.

From a vaguely anthropological point of view, perhaps that is the function that religion performs, it's merely a social glue. For that to work all the glue has to do is be strong and allow for the growth and success of a society, and where that happens perhaps it actually proves nothing more than that the belief system is successful.

There aren't hard and fast conclusions, but merely the musings of the last few days. It's very interesting, but my head hurts.

[Perd Hapley]

On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion

I would very much like to know who you speak of and where and what they said.  

I don't think you've been paying attention to what jfruser has said.

[griz]

I would very much like to know who you speak of and where and what they said.

First I will have to ammend my comment to include THR.  I think of the two as related so did not use the name.  That said, I started searching for just the right quote until I realized I was going into to much detail.  All you have to do is think of the times you have seen the words "nuke" and "Iraq" in the same sentence.  Unless you can show me a big enough cluster of terrorist that it would take a megaton to kill them all, I would take the comment as a condemnation of ordinary Iraqis.  If you want quotes relating the Iraq war to Islam I can show you plenty.

I don't think you've been paying attention to what jfruser has said.

I thought his point was you needed religion for morality and TUHR.  Please tell me what I missed.

[Perd Hapley]

I thought his point was you needed religion for morality and TUHR.  Please tell me what I missed.

This, at the least:

I would assert that the combination of Christian emphasis on the inherent value of every being made in God's image, combined with Greek & Roman ideas of democratic and republican rule, leavened with a heavy dose of Anglo-Saxon personal sovereignty, and given time for those to steep and contend with one another...lead us to our contemporary belief that there is such a thing as TUHR.

He is not saying that generic religious belief leads automatically to TUHR.  

You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith.

I take issue with this comment on two grounds:
1.  It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason.  That would be a first.
2.  It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I.  This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.

[Perd Hapley]

On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion....

 All you have to do is think of the times you have seen the words "nuke" and "Iraq" in the same sentence.  Unless you can show me a big enough cluster of terrorist that it would take a megaton to kill them all, I would take the comment as a condemnation of ordinary Iraqis.  If you want quotes relating the Iraq war to Islam I can show you plenty.

So we have one set of people who say on an internet forum that they want to nuke Iraq, which may or may not be among the set of people who support the Iraq war as a way to indiscriminately kill Muslims.  Not good enough.

In order for your claim to be believable, you're going to have to show us someone, just one, who has said, implied or led a reasonable observer to believe:

I am a practicing Christian.

I think we ought to nuke Iraq.

I think we ought to do it because Iraqis are Muslims.

We ought to kill all Muslims.

We must kill them not because some are terrorists who want to kill us.

Nor must we kill them because all Muslims are terrorists who want to kill us.

Nor must we kill them because Islam teaches terrorism against Christian Americans.

No, we must kill them only because of their religion, no matter how peacefully they practice it.

Got anybody in mind?

Besides all of that, "let's nuke country x" usually means, "Let's stop messing around and really hurt these guys!"

[doczinn]

I think the main problem with the reasoning here is assuming that everyone who says "Nuke the whole place and be done with it." really mean it.

It's an expression of exasperation with the situation. Hell, I've said it, and quite a few times. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.

[Perd Hapley]

You're right drz, although I try not to toss words around that cheaply.

[doczinn]

Me too. I particularly make it a point not to do it on the net, where the exasperation doesn't come through and people think it's serious.

[griz]

He is not saying that generic religious belief leads automatically to TUHR.

I was trying to credit him with a more general assertion than Christian/Anglo-Saxon superiority.  If that is the gist of his theory, it is easily disproved by other religions who believe in TUHR.  In fact I believe some of the eastern religions came to that conclusion before the Christians did.

I take issue with this comment on two grounds:
1.  It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason.  That would be a first.
2.  It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I.  This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.

1. It implies no such thing unless you are merely stating that reason cannot exist on its own.  But that would apply to all reasoning, not just mine.
2. I was thinking along the lines of the advancement of societal thinking, but you may be right about my unintentional temporal chauvinism.

With respect to the nukeem comments, I will grant that some people dont mean what they say.  But if we can assume some people dont mean it when they say they want to kill Muslims, why cant we assume some people do want to kill them when they say the lack of respect the Koran (please excuse my spelling) shows for Christians is a reason for war?

[Perd Hapley]

if we can assume some people dont mean it when they say they want to kill Muslims

Assume away, but I didn't say that.

they say the lack of respect the Koran (please excuse my spelling) shows for Christians is a reason for war?

Who says that?  

You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith.

I take issue with this comment on two grounds:
1.  It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason.  That would be a first.
2.  It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I.  This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.

Yeah, maybe the first comment is unwarranted.  You weren't necessarily saying that TUHR came from reason alone.  But, yes, I was saying that we can't reason our way from the ground up; some assumptions have to be made.  That is, unless you want to be stuck at "Cogito ergo sum."
My second point was that you seem to be saying that people in earlier times were less inclined to use reason.  I don't think that is true.  They reasoned much differently, of course.

[griz]

Assume away, but I didn't say that.

As you had requested, I was trying to show people on this board who believed people of other religions were not entitled to TUHR despite their own Christian/Anglo-Saxon upbringing.  I was not accusing you of that since I do not know who, or even if, you want to kill anyone.

Who says that?

Here is a quote from this thread:

The Taliban is connected to Iraq because of their religion.  Don't you think that they would ban together for the purpose of defeating a country or countries who are Christian and Jewish?  I believe they will ban together at some point because of their religious beliefs.  I think they want to rid the world of Christians and Jews and Atheist.  This all goes back in the Bible to Abraham who is the father of the Arab nation and also the father of the Jewish nation.  A study of these origins would help you to understand their way of thinking.

It seems clear from that thread and others that a lot of people consider us being in Iraq justified by the fact that Islam does not say kind things about Christians.

[Ron]

It seems clear from that thread and others that a lot of people consider us being in Iraq justified by the fact that Islam does not say kind things about Christians.

Give it up. you are way out on a limb trying to find a Christian motive for going into Iraq.

You don't hear cries for us to invade Turkey do you? They don't mess with us so they aren't even on the "invade them" radar. Syria, Iran, SA even Pakistan all deserve a good a** kicking. Not because they are Muslim but because they sponsor terrorism and have made moves against us.

I hope they all get free elections. The ones that vote in governments that want to go toe to toe with us will be easier to wage total war against. We have to leave the gloves on when going against totalitarian regimes. Vote in an anti US government and "F" with us, be prepared to get taken down a few notches, little regard for so called collateral damage.

[Perd Hapley]

griz, I know you weren't saying that I wanted to kill Muslims.  But you did imply that I said, "some people say they want to kill Muslims, but they don't mean it."  I hope that is not too confusing.  If people start talking about nuking some country back to the stone age, I take that with a grain of salt.  If someone says they want to murder Muslims indiscriminately, then that ain't just bluster; it's deplorable bluster.  
 

The Taliban is connected to Iraq because of their religion.  Don't you think that they would ban together for the purpose of defeating a country or countries who are Christian and Jewish?  I believe they will ban together at some point because of their religious beliefs.  I think they want to rid the world of Christians and Jews and Atheist.  This all goes back in the Bible to Abraham who is the father of the Arab nation and also the father of the Jewish nation.  A study of these origins would help you to understand their way of thinking.

It seems clear from that thread and others that a lot of people consider us being in Iraq justified by the fact that Islam does not say kind things about Christians.

What is clear is that this person thinks Muslims are out to get him.  He doesn't want to kill them "because they are of the wrong religion," but because they are a perceived threat.  Self-preservation is a normal human instinct, so you can't say that this person is motivated by religious bigotry.  The quotation you supply doesn't even identify his religion.  Could be animist, pagan or Jewish or something else.

And why must you reduce Islam's attitude toward other religions to "they don't say kind things about them"?  The Koran speaks of killing unbelievers, or at the least keeping them as second-class citizens.  I will look up the passages if you would like.  This is much more than "un-niceness," and I think you know it.  You might just as well say the Aryan Nation "does not say kind things" about black people.

For what it's worth, the Iraq war needs no justification; it was obviously a morally acceptable act.  Whether it was the best thing to do is a different question.