Another athiest question.

[roo_ster]

Both (evolution & Genesis) require magic or faith, as neither has been observed.

[CAnnoneer]

Mike, I think we are in essential agreement, although we differ in a few details.

Repression of other religious groups came only as a means of repressing those who spoke out against the Nazi movement within Germany -- in those instances the Nazis were targeting INDIVIDUALS, not an entire religion or religious denomination.

The distinction is a result of the peculiarity of the nazi beliefs. Other aryans that happened to be catholic are tolerable, because their genes are their advocate (so long as they don't make political trouble). The jew was perceived as genetically pollutive, and thus banned from intermarrying. As far as the final solution goes, I think it was a mixture of wartime aggravations and practical policing expediency in 1942, rather than something Hitler planned since 1923. At least I do not remember anything to that terminal effect in Mein Kampf.

Perhaps better way to think about it is that it was "believers slaughtering a particular ethnic group", as opposed to "believers slaughtering believers", since being an atheist would not have saved a jew from the policies.

Finally, yes, Mein Kampf was an early work in Hitler's political life. But I think it's rather simplistic to say that sometime between 1922 and 1935 Hitler suddenly had a mystical conversion in which all Christian factors of his life were suddenly, or even slowly, purged from his mindset.

Here I think differently. He certainly preserved many of the key points from Mein Kampf, but while the writing betrays decidedly socialist leanings, Hitler looks more socially conservative after 1934. Also, the book is basically a disjoint compilation of a young angry man's ramblings on various topics. On the other hand, throughout WW2, Hitler demonstrated a marked capacity for detail, clarity, planning, and organization. Thus if Mein Kampf is a window to Hitler's mind in 1923, he must have gone through a lot of personal growth in the intervening decade. Either that, or the book is essentially Rudolph Hess's "Notes from Landsberg".

Yes, Hitler performed as a high priest at Aryan rallies. Does that mean, though, that that is proof of his dismissal of Christian influences, or does it mean he was fulfill his role as leader of the Nazi movement?

I don't have enough data to judge the extent of the conversion. However, if I remember correctly, there is a passage in Mein Kampf to the effect that judeo-christian traditions was a way for the aryans to be kept down by their weaker enemies. It sounds plausible to me that Hitler was as much a christian as Kerry is a hunter.

[wooderson]

Both (evolution & Genesis) require magic or faith, as neither has been observed.

Bollocks. Evolution is readily observable and re-creatable. That species evolve is no longer a question and hasn't been for a century. How species evolve is the new area of theory.

As science, how we evolve is constantly open to hypothesis and testing - anyone with a better idea is free to experiment and redefine our concept of evolution. As has routinely happened (which is why the fundie obsession with Darwin is so bizarre and enjoyable - Darwin is eighth-grade biology now).

Science makes no claims to infallibility or absolutism. You believe what the evidence illustrates with a mind open for future evidence to come in.

Therein the key difference.

Creationism is untestable. Creationism is unalterable. Creationism is religious belief and nothing more - God created. Fin. Infallible, no room for discussion or dissent or thought.

[RJMcElwain]

Actually, with gene-mapping, they can do a pretty good job of filling in a lot of the gaps in the evolutionary charts. We already know that our human genome is something like 98% identical to that of one of the close cousins of the chimpanzees.

Bob

[Perd Hapley]

Because it tells me about his attitude toward science and reason (evolution, for instance).

No, it does not.  Even people like Bush, with degrees from Ivy League schools, don't usually have enough scientific training to know whether evolution is plausible or to determine the age of the earth by radiology and other dating methods.  Blindly following the dictates of those who do claim to have such knowledge of improbable, anti-intuitive theories is not more rational than trusting a book such as the Bible. 

Besides, even if Creationism were irrational, that wouldn't tell you very much about those who believe it.  Just reading an internet forum should be enough to tell you that people can be quite rational on one issue and downright wacky on another. 

Creationism is religious belief and nothing more - God created. Fin. Infallible, no room for discussion or dissent or thought.

That's odd.  I've thought about it a lot. 

[Matthew Carberry]

Actually, with gene-mapping, they can do a pretty good job of filling in a lot of the gaps in the evolutionary charts. We already know that our human genome is something like 98% identical to that of one of the close cousins of the chimpanzees.

Bob

Would you like to point out the genetic similarity of all mammels as well as just the hominids?  We're talking tenths and hundreths of percent of difference, even going outside mammalia.  DNA is a building block for living organisms that can exist in our terrestrial biosphere, it's no surprise the genome is so similar.  When you're looking at similar creatures in similar niches, the closeness of the genome provides little to argue for evolution from one to another.

There's only so many ways to build a boat, they all look pretty much alike and have about the same parts.  Doesn't mean the dhow and the junk and the longboat had anything to do with each others designs.

[roo_ster]

Both (evolution & Genesis) require magic or faith, as neither has been observed.

Bollocks...

Do'h!  I see I ought to have been more precise.

To clarify, I meant the materialist evolutionary analog to the Genesis account: the process of creating something living from non-living materials.  Abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, and autogenesis being other terms.

Neither has sufficient materialist, empirical evidence to support it*.  Both require faith in something.

Given that life already exists, there is evidence of evolution of that life over time, though there are rather large gaps that must be papered over to make it appear complete.

* My POV being that of a physicist working in the engineering world, where if "proof by vigorous handwaving" and "apply magic/lots of time/faerie dust at this point" is required to support a theory, that theory does not cut the muster.  If it can't be domenstrated, is not repeatable, and can't be done in the field in uncontrolled conditions...I am not impressed (from a materialist standpoint).

Creationism is untestable. Creationism is unalterable. Creationism is religious belief and nothing more - God created. Fin. Infallible, no room for discussion or dissent or thought.

The Genesis story requires faith to believe it, no doubt.  I would argue the "unalterable" point.  Also, your last sentence does not reflect the the reality recorded in the history of the Western world these last few centuries.

[CAnnoneer]

Would you like to point out the genetic similarity of all mammels as well as just the hominids?  We're talking tenths and hundreths of percent of difference, even going outside mammalia. 

Nope. Check your facts. There are many mammals that are much further than that from us. Aside from apes and monkeys, one of the closest is mice, which are only 70% identical to us. The rest are further and further away. A small but critical portion of the genes is shared because certain things like actin are used by virtually everyone at the cellular level, ergo the name "housekeeping genes".

I personally do not mind creationism, because it is an indisputable obvious extension of religion. ID on the other hand is an insidious trick to try to take scientific results and turn them against science to create the illusion that there is a real scientific controversy and thus gain political credit with the religious right. ID is certainly not refutable because any time new evolutionary evidence is procured, the IDers will change their story accordingly and keep the divine in the game by sequestering it in the areas of poorest understanding/evidence. It is "a parasytic theory".

As far as new evidence of abiogenesis, any provided will never be enough, because even if you conduct the perfect experiment and get life from lifelessness by supplying raw materials and the correct conditions, a believer will always come along and claim a divine intervetion helped with the experiment.

Religious mysticism is a cognitive ailment that only the patient can cure.

[roo_ster]

As far as new evidence of abiogenesis, any provided will never be enough, because even if you conduct the perfect experiment and get life from lifelessness by supplying raw materials and the correct conditions, a believer will always come along and claim a divine intervetion helped with the experiment.

Religious mysticism is a cognitive ailment that only the patient can cure.

CAnnoneer, that is a copout (regarding abiogenesis) and begs the question, "What are you trying to prove?" 

There are plenty of us Christian types who have no problem with science demonstrating* what it can, when it can, such as (possibly in the future) some sort of abiogenesis.  You may not get the full, satisfied, postcoital feeling of disabusing folks of their faith, however.  That is your issue.

For instance, I have no problem whatsoever believing in a God that both created the scientific laws of the universe and uses them for His ends.  Discovering a new process or law of nature is no cause for a crisis of the faith.  A better understanding of His creation is a good thing.

FWIW, I am kinda cool on the whole ID deal.  The best thing to come out of ID is casting a gimlet eye on the edifice of bio-theory and being willing to call bullsh!t when the bio-scince community is trying to pull a fast one.

* I think there is a bit of a disconnect between the bio-science types and other hard-science types as to what constitutes "proof" of a theory.  Some of us (hard/applied non-bio-scince types)  see some of the bio-theories as pretty shaky and being buttressed by faith in science/materialism itself out of fear of the consequences of acknowledging its holes.  This is not the best attitude for scientific enquiry (making some subjects taboo, not acknowleding holes, etc.).  Let the chips fall and be willing to say, "D@mned if I know how that happens," when understanding is at its end. 

[Ex-MA Hole]

Thread jack:

Public service announcement:

Atheism is a non-prophet organization

This concludes this testing of the emergency broadcasting system.

[Matthew Carberry]

Nope. Check your facts. There are many mammals that are much further than that from us. Aside from apes and monkeys, one of the closest is mice, which are only 70% identical to us. The rest are further and further away. A small but critical portion of the genes is shared because certain things like actin are used by virtually everyone at the cellular level, ergo the name "housekeeping genes".

CAnnon,

Thanks for the correction, I obviously need to reread my texts.

[CAnnoneer]

CAnnoneer, that is a copout (regarding abiogenesis) and begs the question, "What are you trying to prove?" There are plenty of us Christian types who have no problem with science demonstrating* what it can, when it can, such as (possibly in the future) some sort of abiogenesis. 

You will have to explain why what I said is a "copout". My point was that no evidence can sway a mystic. At best, it provides more information for him to assimilate into his worldview, modifying the details but keeping the fundamental beliefs and approach intact. This has been the historical progression of the past 500 years as science advanced while religion retreated on the phenomenological battlefield.

Let's assume for the moment that I demonstrate complete genesis from chemical elements to simple single-cell organisms. What will be the reaction of the creationist and ID community?

You may not get the full, satisfied, postcoital feeling of disabusing folks of their faith, however.  That is your issue.

We can only guess at what internal daemons made you say that.

For instance, I have no problem whatsoever believing in a God that both created the scientific laws of the universe and uses them for His ends.  Discovering a new process or law of nature is no cause for a crisis of the faith.  A better understanding of His creation is a good thing.

Precisely the attitude I outlined. You have already decided that all we observe is divine miracles of one form or another. Confess - nothing I can show you or do can shake that fundamental belief of yours.

[roo_ster]

CAnnoneer:

It is a copout, because the point of contention is the unproven nature of both materialistic abiogenesis & Genesis and the faith it requires to believe in either.  You do not provide any data to refute my assertion, but cop out and write, "As far as new evidence of abiogenesis, any provided will never be enough..."  Baloney.  I can be convinced of materialist mechanisms, but that takes data & demonstration, not whining.  If you can prove materialistic abiogenesis, do so.  If you can't, admit you're taking it on faith (definition #2 seems appropriate).

For instance, I have no problem whatsoever believing in a God that both created the scientific laws of the universe and uses them for His ends.  Discovering a new process or law of nature is no cause for a crisis of the faith.  A better understanding of His creation is a good thing.

Precisely the attitude I outlined. You have already decided that all we observe is divine miracles of one form or another. Confess - nothing I can show you or do can shake that fundamental belief of yours.

Like I said, "What are you trying to prove?"  It looks to me you are trying to disprove the existence of God, not prove materialistic abiogenesis.  FWIW, I doubt you will have success in either endeavor.

I would say that all we observe is the result of God's creation, which is a miracle.  I would also say that, for example, the laws of motion were created by divine will.  Any particular particle obeying the laws of motion may or may not be a miracle.  It might just be a rock given an initial vector traversing a path through earth's gravity by a child seeking to skip it across a pond.

CAnnoneer, you can demonstrate all manner of materialistic processes and convince me that they are real and repeatable.  Folks have done so in the past.  I doubt your ability to shake my faith by doing so.

Let's assume for the moment that I demonstrate complete genesis from chemical elements to simple single-cell organisms. What will be the reaction of the creationist and ID community?

I don't know.  Maybe most will complete their breakfast and go to work.  From what you have written, I would guess that your hope would be their loss of faith in God.  That seems to be a recurring hobbyhorse of yours.

[CAnnoneer]

My general point was it does not matter what I prove. Before I show abiogenesis, believers say "Ha! You have not demonstrated it, so that is where the divine lurks!" If I prove abiogenesis, believers will say "Cool! Now we know how that works! G be praised! The divine happened before then, or lurks at a more fundamental level. As far as spontaneous genesis and evolution go, you are still wrong, just wrong in a different way." Therefore, nothing I can do will make any FUNDAMENTAL difference for a believer. I cannot disprove the existence of the divine to anyone, not because it exists, but because believers will always just expand the universe and run for the dark. Even if I explain and show everything that is perceptable/measurable, they will say the divine is in the imperceptible/immeasurable. There is no way to pin them down, because they redefine their own rules as they go, meanwhile obstinately maintaining the existence of something they have no physical evidence of. Even worse, those that believe in the pantheism - divine in everything - turn around and tell me that the material IS proof of the immaterial. Yikes!

[CAnnoneer]

From what you have written, I would guess that your hope would be their loss of faith in God.  That seems to be a recurring hobbyhorse of yours.

That's a fair question. My motivations are multiple. Some are more selfish than others.

Part of it is a form of fighting against phenomenological misconceptions that modern science has long bypassed but they still lurk around. As a man of science, it is in a sense my civic duty to offer the scientific perspective to the best of my own understanding. I believe an educated populace makes for a stronger, better, more successful society that can make better, more informed decisions. If we are to preserve constitutional democracy, that is essential.

Next, in my eyes, organized religion is a very dangerous vicious force, which historically has led to much abuse, deception, oppression, and unnecessary violence. If more people abandon religious beliefs and attitudes for a more secular, perhaps even sociobiological perception of the world, I think the net effect would be very positive.

Further, I perceive religious thought as cognitively crippled, because I think the scientific method is better, more objective, less emotionally loaded, and in a sense, closer to the material universe and its laws. So, I perceive the abandonment of religious beliefs as a form of liberation. If I help liberate people, then I will live in a society of freer people, which ultimately enhances and safeguards my own freedoms.

Finally, as a materialist, it is not to my benefit to live among the religious (since I do not wish to take advantage of them). From my perspective, if people can convince themselves in the existence of something for which they have no material evidence, they can convince themselves in virtually anything. That does not bode well for me or for the furtherance of what I might consider positive developments, and thus it is to my natural benefit to resist it.

[Manedwolf]

Finally, as a materialist, it is not to my benefit to live among the religious (since I do not wish to take advantage of them). From my perspective, if people can convince themselves in the existence of something for which they have no material evidence, they can convince themselves in virtually anything. That does not bode well for me or for the furtherance of what I might consider positive developments, and thus it is to my natural benefit to resist it.

Or, to simplify that statement, an echo from history..."Burn her, she's a witch!"

[De Selby]

It's a good thing hard core materialists and "scientific" social theorists have not been responsible for so many crimes against humanity.  Otherwise, they might not be in such a good position to bash religious communities for crimes past.

I mean, seriously, how bad would it look if materialists did away with religious concepts like "intrinsic rights" and replaced them with scientific programs like eugenics, in order to "improve the strength of the species"?

What if Nietzschean materialists had mobilized people to fight giant, worldwide wars based on the "natural" and "scientific" principle that the strongest are entitled to take what they will? 

How bad would it look if proponents of this kind of thinking had been responsible for murdering millions of people?

Phew....good thing for the anti-religious crowd.  I mean, there must have been a few thousand witches burned by religious authorities and many cruel laws enacted, so that's proof that religion is backwards and anti-life.

The spotless record of "life affirming" secular/scientific societies must be proof positive that religion has no place in the modern world.  I'm convinced.

[tyme]

Let's assume for the moment that I demonstrate complete genesis from chemical elements to simple single-cell organisms. What will be the reaction of the creationist and ID community?

I don't know.  Maybe most will complete their breakfast and go to work.  From what you have written, I would guess that your hope would be their loss of faith in God.  That seems to be a recurring hobbyhorse of yours.

If you're content to write off portions of the Bible as metaphor whenever scientific development conflicts with a literal interpretation, your "religion" is nothing more than a general set of morals and ethics, which are then open to philosophical debate.

[CAnnoneer]

I mean, seriously, how bad would it look if materialists did away with religious concepts like "intrinsic rights" and replaced them with scientific programs like eugenics, in order to "improve the strength of the species"?

Yeah, I wonder how useful "thou shalt not kill" has been over the ages, particularly to victims of religious and economic wars. It is a conditional social convention, and you know it. You yourself believe that terrorists are justified to kill Americans, because America is "involved" in ME regimes. Where were the "intrinsic rights" on 9/11 or every time those animals saw people's heads off? Despicable hypocrite.

And there is nothing wrong with improvement. Men and women do it all the time, since the beginning of times, by careful selection of reproductive partners.

What if Nietzschean materialists had mobilized people to fight giant, worldwide wars based on the "natural" and "scientific" principle that the strongest are entitled to take what they will?

As discussed multiple times, the Nazis were not without a religion, albeit a primitive one. They also were not really Nietzschean either, because Nitzsche concentrates on the individual achievement, not on selective breeding.

How bad would it look if proponents of this kind of thinking had been responsible for murdering millions of people?

You are long on polemics and short on facts. Nazis were not atheists. Soviets certainly were anti-scientific when it suited them (e.g. genetics) and had a mythology of blind beliefs, their own clerics and warrior-priests.

there must have been a few thousand witches burned by religious authorities and many cruel laws enacted, so that's proof that religion is backwards and anti-life.

Nice try. As usual, misinformation and furious spin, something to be expected from a pro-terrorist anti-American multiculturalist. The history of the world is richly soaked in religion-based warfare, some very prominent examples being between christians and muslims, and between protestants and catholics. Anyone with an even glacial understanding of history laughs at the above sarcastic nonsense.

[De Selby]

Yeah, I wonder how useful "thou shalt not kill" has been over the ages, particularly to victims of religious and economic wars.

It's certainly been much more useful than "thou shalt kill anyone when the economic balance sheet dictates the killing will yield a profit."  Or "thou shalt kill anyone who asserts a property right over something you want", or anything similar.

And there is nothing wrong with improvement. Men and women do it all the time, since the beginning of times, by careful selection of reproductive partners.

Sure, and look at how "improved" secularism made warfare.  What wonders the scientific revolution brought!  Engineering and science, with no religious authority....it's weird.  I mean, it seems obvious that disconnected from a religious moral grounding, people might use advanced technology to engineer ways to kill all of the socially undesirable.

But hey, you don't have to own that as an atheist-materialist because it never happened right?

As discussed multiple times, the Nazis were not without a religion, albeit a primitive one. They also were not really Nietzschean either, because Nitzsche concentrates on the individual achievement, not on selective breeding.

Try to elaborate a principle whereby Nazi ideology is religious, but your claims about scientific advancement and freedom are not.

Soviets certainly were anti-scientific when it suited them (e.g. genetics) and had a mythology of blind beliefs, their own clerics and warrior-priests.

What's the atomic weight of the proposition that "genocide is bad"? Wait, you can't measure values and social goals with the scientific method?  So how exactly did  you decide that the Soviets had blind beliefs, and how are your beliefs less blind?

The history of the world is richly soaked in religion-based warfare, some very prominent examples being between christians and muslims, and between protestants and catholics. Anyone with an even glacial understanding of history laughs at the above sarcastic nonsense.

The amazing thing is that will all those centuries of warfare, it literally only took two wars at the hands of "enlightened" secularists to rack up a death toll that is several orders of magnitude larger.  More people were killed in WWI and WWII than in all religious wars previous...combined.

The real laugh is that you expect Christians and other religious folk to answer for their co-religionists crimes, but seem absolutely unwilling or unable to answer for crimes committed in the name of "commitment to science" or "rationalism over backwards religiosity."

[CAnnoneer]

It's certainly been much more useful than "thou shalt kill anyone when the economic balance sheet dictates the killing will yield a profit."  Or "thou shalt kill anyone who asserts a property right over something you want", or anything similar.

Non-responsive, and you know it. More dust in the eyes. Nice try though.

Sure, and look at how "improved" secularism made warfare. 

It is not secularism, it is technology. It allows you to kill more and faster, but is ethically neutral and a tool in the hands of any nutjob, be it religious or otherwise. Again, nice diversion, but nobody is fooled.

Try to elaborate a principle whereby Nazi ideology is religious, but your claims about scientific advancement and freedom are not.

Nazis had a number of arbitrary phenomenological beliefs ranging from a mythic ancient aryan fatherland, passing through ideas of unproven genetic superiority, worship of aryan blood and heritage, and ending in all sorts of occult nonsense at Wewelsburg and elsewhere.

The scientific method does not presuppose anything because it is based on observation and experiment. It does not have mystical or occult arbitrary believes, it does not worship anything. Scientific theories change to accomodate new evidence, while the fundamental method of inquiry remains the same. Science strives to ensure as much objectivity as humanly possible by a rigorous system of internal checks, and most importantly by being subject to perpetual tests of reproducibility.

I will revert your question to ask in what ways science is a religion.

So how exactly did  you decide that the Soviets had blind beliefs, and how are your beliefs less blind?

Soviets obstinately believed that people are equal in abilities and the only differences are a result of environment. To believe anything else would be equivalent to losing ground before the claims of blood superiority by the former aristocracies. This blind egalitarianism resulted in decidedly unscientific rejection and suppression of genetics. That is one of the most obvious examples where Soviet phenomenology was religious in nature. Further phenomenological deviancies can be observed in their subsystem of beliefs concerning the psychological reeducation of people into workerbee communists. Soviets neglected all sociological and psychological precedent in terms of greed and self-preservation, and instead obstinately embraced that laughable arbitrary belief.

The amazing thing is that will all those centuries of warfare, it literally only took two wars at the hands of "enlightened" secularists to rack up a death toll that is several orders of magnitude larger.  More people were killed in WWI and WWII than in all religious wars previous...combined.

That's a bunch of laughable hogwash.

Most soldiers in WWI fought for "God, King, and Country" and were blessed by slick padres very much like yourself just before they were fed to the machine guns and rapid-fire artillery. It is laughable to say that WWI was a war between secularists.

WWII was a war between ideologies which were essentially religious (nazis, commies, bushidoists). If there were any "good guys" in the mix, that would be the partially secularist govs of US and GB, and even they made plentiful use of the divine to encourage their soldiers to fight.

Finally, the "racking up" of casualties is a result of superior technologies available. If the christians and muslims in the mediterranean and near east, the catholics and protestants in the Thirty Year War, etc. had machineguns and tanks, they would certainly have used them against one another, just as they used biological weapons against one another by customarily catapulting at one another human corpses infected with bubonic plague. Finally, as a percentage of total population of combatants, even WW2 cannot rival religion-based purges, e.g. in the Middle Ages.

The real laugh is that you expect Christians and other religious folk to answer for their co-religionists crimes, but seem absolutely unwilling or unable to answer for crimes committed in the name of "commitment to science" or "rationalism over backwards religiosity."

First, the people you are referring to were neither scientists nor secularists, so that part of your argument is meaningless. As far as keeping religious people responsible for crimes of the past, I don't. My gripe is with religion as an organization and mysticism as a cognitive method. If you had paid attention to what I have said, that would have been obvious to you.

[De Selby]

CAnnoneer,

Please explain how you scientificially test values, and how you can use the scientific method to produce them.

There is a basic distinction which you understand when you want to distance secularism from violence, but which you seem to magically forget when you want to go back to promoting the wonders of the scientific method:

Facts do not yield values.  Scientific methods are ultimately only capable of yielding facts.  You can't design an experiment that tells you what you should do with the knowledge you gain from that experiment.

Hence, your claim that the scientific method and adherence to scientific principles will somehow benefit humanity more than religious values is complete bunk.  If you do not already presume some values like "technology should be used to benefit humanity" or "I should use resources to minimize suffering", then there is absolutely no reason on earth why scientific development will or is even likely to produce good.

Your problem is that you're so blind to your own moral assumptions that you don't even see them stepping in to shape your notions of the value of science.  You're not just making a religious commitment to values, you're doing it so blindly that you don't even recognize that you have arbitrarily committed in the first place.

Just to be clear: the religion isn't science itself, it's your blind faith that ignoring religious values and concentrating on the beauty of the scientific method will yield benefits to humanity.  Without a presupposed moral framework to guide the implementation of scientific discoveries, there is absolutely zero rational way to claim that science is good.

[CAnnoneer]

Please explain how you scientificially test values, and how you can use the scientific method to produce them.

Science is the indisputable leader in phenomenology, not ethics. Like it or not, a religion by necessity has to make claims in both realms. "There is only one God" is a phenomenological statement, not an ethical one, and thus it is assailable by scientific methods, because science had the full right to step in and say "Where is your objective evidence?". That is where all religions crumble unless they go hide in the immaterial/transcedental and refuse to offer any tangible evidence.

Where science cannot do much is in ethics and values. "Blue is good, red is evil." are values statements and cannot be assailed by science because they are personal preferences. At best, science can try to explain why certain preferences make more biological sense than others, or extrapolate what certain values will result in in the material world.

My assault on organized religion and phenomenological mysticism is defensible on rational, mechanistic grounds, and indeed it does presuppose a very basic system of values/preferences, such as: {alive is better than dead, smart is better than stupid, strong is better than weak, healthy is better than sick, rich is better than poor, pretty is better than ugly, pleasure is better than pain}. IMO, such a system is universally acceptable, albeit arbitrary, and regardless of what other superstructures people choose to add. That basic set of preferences seems very natural and maximally in tune with a life-affirming, survivalist attitude, which is the expectation of any natural species. I do not think I ethically assume anything beyond that. 

Hence, your claim that the scientific method and adherence to scientific principles will somehow benefit humanity more than religious values is complete bunk. 

By itself, it would be bunk. In combination with the above basic set of values/preferences, it certainly is not, because a materialistic, objective method (e.g. science) would tell us what is the most efficient way to satisfy the basic set of (animalistic) values in a workable society.

Your problem is that you're so blind to your own moral assumptions that you don't even see them stepping in to shape your notions of the value of science. 

Nope, I have been aware of them. They have been present tacitly, because it is an objective truth that a typical Homo Sapiens would accept them as fundamentally reasonable. Yeah, there might be somebody out there who likes to be sick, poor, weak, ugly, dead or in pain, but frankly, he'd consign himself to material, social, and genetic irrelevance pretty damn quick to be of any influence to the proceedings.

[De Selby]

"There is only one God" is a phenomenological statement, not an ethical one, and thus it is assailable by scientific methods, because science had the full right to step in and say "Where is your objective evidence?". That is where all religions crumble unless they go hide in the immaterial/transcedental and refuse to offer any tangible evidence

What the heck is "objective evidence"?   Seriously, if there is one debate that is dead in the philosophy of science, it is the claim that science provides "objective evidence." 

Your problem is that, in the same way you invented a cartoon Nazism to claim that it was religious, you're making a cartoon version of religious claims about God in order to evaluate them with your scientific methods. 

If I say: "There is one God, all powerful, and beyond all tests and measures", which is the basic claim of monotheism from ancient times in the Jewish tradition, then by definition there is something which can't be tested.  It's not a flight from science; it's a claim about the nature of the divine that is part and parcel of the religion and that precedes the scientific method by a good 1500 years. 

IMO, such a system is universally acceptable, albeit arbitrary, and regardless of what other superstructures people choose to add. That basic set of preferences seems very natural and maximally in tune with a life-affirming, survivalist attitude, which is the expectation of any natural species. I do not think I ethically assume anything beyond that. 

The problem is that this is jam packed with assumptions.  Look at how many values-laden assumptions you have packed into this arbitrary system of yours:

alive is better than dead

"better" is not a value neutral term, and this is far from a universal rule.  I've seen you frequently advocate mass killing in the war on terror; so obviously you think some death is better than some life.  You've got a value-laden mess to deal with right there, and I guarantee that any solution you come up with will be as arbitrary as a religious value, and due to the fact that you just came up with it when you tried to respond to this question...it will be amateurish and absurd compared to what centuries of theology can offer as an alternative.

smart is better than stupid

This has the problem of what is better, combined with defining "smart" and "stupid."  None of these are value-free or obvious matters.

strong is better than weak

Same as above, you've also got to deal with what constitutes strength and weakness.

healthy is better than sick

Just as value laden.  Some people think that being anti-religious is a sickness; unless your principle here is so limited as to be uselessly confined to things like blood pressure and heart rate, it's packed with value-laden ideas about what constitutes health.

You get the picture for the rest.  The fact that you can use oversimplistic terms to sum up your extremely rough notions of good and bad doesn't mean that there aren't any moral issues to contend with there.  It just means that you are either incapable of seeing them or unwilling to consider any depth to the problem, which again...makes you as much a blind faith, unreflective believer as the most rabid fundamentalist.

n combination with the above basic set of values/preferences, it certainly is not, because a materialistic, objective method (e.g. science) would tell us what is the most efficient way to satisfy the basic set of (animalistic) values in a workable society.

And here's the fundamental problem:  Why are your "animalistic values" any good? Because CAnnoneer believes it and doesn't reflect on how complex his judgments are does not constitute a good reason to accept this.  Your values are totally unreflective and shallow, and are a perfect example of why overemphasis on the scientific method leads people into bizarre and destructive behavior like eugenics and genocide.  It is a fundamentalism, and it's just as destructive as religious fundamentalism.

They have been present tacitly, because it is an objective truth that a typical Homo Sapiens would accept them as fundamentally reasonable.

The irony is spine breaking.  Here you are saying that this is a de minimis value system, yet you use terms like:

"objective truth"--What the heck is this? There is no possible way to define this phrase in a manner that is meaningful.  It is literally one of the most meaningless catchphrases in the human language today, and it's been demonstrated as such repeatedly by the analytic philosophers like Putnam and Russell. 

Of course, if you don't think reflecting on what you are saying and what your values mean is important, it's not a problem.  But that makes you a fundamentalist.

"typical homo sapiens"--the typical homo sapien is religious.

"would accept"--now we're dealing in statistics and psychology, a far cry from a laboratory setting.

"fundamentally reasonable"--??? What does this mean in this context? 

I think what you mean to say is "I think most people agree with me, so I don't have to elaborate what I mean or think about it too hard."  In that case....well, it's obvious that most people don't agree with you (just look at the way people react to your judgments and pronouncements here concerning the various moral and religious topics), and it also means that you are a fundamentalist--you presume the validity of your beliefs without reflection.

[CAnnoneer]

Sorry, dude, but your are again running away to semantics and the truly bizarre. I need to define to you what "objective truth", "strong", "healthy" etc. mean? You can do word-pulling all you want. Get outta he'e.

All the simple statements I listed refer to an individual, not society, and pretty obviously so. Also "better" is obviously the "preferable". So most of your post is meaningless. Society steps in later, as people have to form social rules that maximally satisfy their individual preferences within the objectively possible.

For example, there is no contradiction in "I prefer to be alive, so I find it objectively necessary that certain others are dead".

Anybody who prefers to be sick than healthy will likely die and put himself out of existence, thus becoming irrelevant to the proceedings.

Anybody who prefers to be weak than strong will likely not survive a confrontation, and so will suffer material damage of one type or another, again pushing him to irrelevance and/or extinction.

Anybody who prefers to be ugly than pretty will likely find it harder to secure a mate, thereby decreasing his impact on the genetic pool and again pushing oneself to irrelevance and/or extinction.

Anybody who prefers to be dumb than smart runs larger survival risks of all sorts, and thus pushes himself into irrelevance and/or extinction.

These are fundamental, biology- and survival-driven preferences. You can argue with them or disown them, at your own peril. There is nothing arbitrary about them. They are objectively sensible and efficient.