Stephen's comments (member since Jan 02, 2009)

Stephen's comments from the Atheists and Skeptics group.

The Catholic Church has become so unpopular over time because of their treatment of people they concieved as heretics.

The Catholic Church should be pilloried now for their current abuses. For example, for their policy on birth control, especially in Africa and for abuses of children in their care. Their religion is directly responsible for their hang-ups on sex.

The goodness of the particular belief system will speak for itself, and will draw people to it accordingly.

I’m with rgb here, the word should be correctness.

It is a common response of people of faith to try and reach out to other faiths, as if to say ‘any belief is better than no belief’. Although, when pressed they will always add ‘but my system is the right one really’. It is to Alex’s credit that he includes atheism this time, however, I have to point out that atheism is not a belief system, it is a logical, sceptical position against belief systems.

Rgb,

Your use of the word evil requires definition (or substitution with another word). I’m never sure what it means. It conjures up the idea of someone doing a violent deed specifically with a mad gleam in their eye. What is their intention, why are they doing it? The word also has religious overturns but I believe these are deliberately created and blown up as part of religion’s controlling aspects where it requires its subjects to toe the line, together with playing on a fear of outsiders.

Obviously some sort of psychotic illness can cause such acts but many acts of violence have a cause in the desperation of the perpetrators. And this can only increase as our numbers grow and fewer people have access to clean water, food and security.

I guess the only acts I would call evil are those where the perpetrator actually enjoys inflicting pain on others. But even these are probably either psychopathic in nature or the person has been brainwashed by an ideology or religion to believe that others are less worthy than themselves.

In short, I don’t like the word. It is used too freely and it carries too much baggage.

Thanks Kristina, I was nearly there :o)

Emily, I’m with you. I’m bowled over by the world, both by its natural beauty and by the story that science is finding out – so much more fascinating and awe inspiring than old myths and religious texts.

Having said that, I’m fully aware of the privileged position we have in the developed world, we have the time and the security to appreciate the world. For many, however, it is a struggle, and it is inequalities and desperation that cause strife.

I’m with Dan on protecting my loved ones. But protect from who? It could only be from people who are desperate (excluding anyone mentally disturbed or psychopathic). People aren’t born good or evil, they have the capacity for deeds of both kind but if they are underprivileged they will become desperate.

The one exception to this is the virus of religion. There is a quote along the lines that good people do good deeds and bad people do bad deeds but for a good person to do a bad deed it takes religion. Good examples would be the Pope or the people that flew the planes into the world trade towers.

How can the Pope talk of 'love' when he is directly the cause of so much suffering e.g. in Africa!

Nobody can establish certainty or knowledge on the basis of an endless regress of self-referring assumptions.

Certainty can’t be established, only ‘most probable’ and for that you need axioms.

Alex wrote:
/The difference between the atheist and the Christian in this sense is that the atheist may act ethically for certain reasons (e.g. not wanting to go to jail, it disrupts social order, it makes them look good to others, etc.), but he has no ultimate reason for acting ethically because there is no ultimate moral authority that exists over each sphere of his life. Without this ultimate authority, each atheist defines morality on his own terms, although his morality is influenced by the remnants of morality from the image of God within, along with the strictures and constraints of the culture and society in which the atheist exists./

Firstly, I agree with Dan, this is insulting to atheists.

/The Christian, on the other hand, acts morally out of the knowledge of the moral law given by God in His Word and a love for the Law-giver Himself. In addition, that knowledge is continually increased and personalized by the indwelling Spirit of God, whose task it is to bring the Christian “into all truth”'/

Secondly, if the Christian acts morally in accordance with god’s wishes, how does that Christian know what god’s wishes are in each case? Has he got a direct line to god? “What shall I do here oh mighty one?” If not then that Christian is (just like the atheist) defining morality in his own terms!! On top of that, however, he is only doing it to please god (who is watching), not because it is the right thing to do (as in the atheist’s case)! Who is more moral now!

Then we get /in Christianity human dignity comes from being made in the image of God the Creator./

Talk about self important egotism!

Tyler,

How can Alex be a skeptic if he believes in things without evidence? That seems to be a rather stupid thing to do.

Also rgb has not offended me.

----------------

Alex,

Clever of you to be able to identify those bits of the bible that are eyewitness accounts of historical events that should be taken as observed facts and those bits that are just a morality play.

/Would it have served Gods purpose thirty-four hundred years ago to lecture to His people about radioactive decay, geological strata, and DNA?' Francis S Collins, head of the Human Genome Project./

Are you saying god wrote the bible? Surely you know it was cobbled together hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.

Damasio is good, all be it a bit wordy. Although he uses quotes from old philosophers he is a scientist who is really finding out about where emotion originates and how it is used in the brain.

And yes, Christianity is a god of the gaps theory. And the gaps are getting smaller all the time.

Hi Coyle,

Many thanks for giving answers to my questions. Others here have picked up on what seems like mystical double talk with some of them (for instance your re-definition of ‘literal’) but I want to touch on another of your perspectives...

/"Young Earth or god set it in motion at the big bang?": I've been asked this one a few times (mostly by rgb, if I remember correctly) and have dodged answering it, largely because I really don't care./

This point of view I really don’t understand. Personally I’m fascinated by such questions as ‘where did I come from’, ‘where did the world come from’, ‘where does behaviour come from’, ‘what is the nature of time, of matter, of emotions, etc, etc, etc...

200 years ago I might well have agreed that god created us. But since then we’ve had science, and what a story it tells! Far more amazing and awe inspiring than any myth or fiction. The scientific method is really the best tool we have for investigating the universe. For instance, without our scientific understanding of how the brain works it would just seem like a magic black box.

So you can see, with my fascination of these questions and the amazing things science is finding out, I really can’t understand the perspective of “god did it all so that’s the answer and I don’t need to worry about that any more”. It seems such a cop out and, what’s more, based on no evidence.

I too like the dream, but it's a bit like religion isn't it? Wishfull thinking and then you want to believe. :o)

What religion is good at is perpetuating itself. Indoctrinating others, especially kids, in order to keep itself going.

By the way Coyle, what type of Christian are you, there are so many! Literal bible or pick and choose? Support the Pope telling Africans not to have sex? Young Earth or god set it in motion at the big bang? Do you speak to your invisible friend and ask him to set aside the laws of physics to carry out your requests? Or is it just a warm fuzzy feeling you get when you think of love?

Earth is only good real estate to life that evolved here. Science fiction would have us boldly going from one planet to the next, without a space suit if it has a breathable atmosphere. However, we are intimately entwined with the biology of this planet: the essential bacteria in our digestive tract; the proteins we need; our immune system evolved and trained for our cradle Earth, to name but a few.

Aliens likewise would have the same links to their planet. It would be a massive job of planetary engineering to sterilise Earth and make it safe and then seed it with their own biology at the same time as ensuring their own systems did not evolve out of control. We would face the same problems moving out into the galaxy.

Also, it would not solve any overcrowding problems on the home world, you just can’t move that many people.

While biology is a huge problem, an even bigger one is technology. Physicist Bob Park says each year he gets his new intake of students to calculate the cost of transporting people and their life support systems to the nearest star. It is just astronomical (forgive the pun). Also, it’s a one way trip taking generations to get there and no help once there. Again aliens have the same problems.

I agree with others here, other life is very likely in our galaxy, simply because of its mind boggling size and the length of time it’s had to evolve (many times over even). But I can’t see it as a threat to us for the many reasons outlined above.

We should, and probably will, move out into our solar system but as for going further I’m very sceptical of its probability and practicability. We have become too used to science fiction: there is no ‘warp drive’, no ‘transporter’ and no instant communication with ‘Starfleet Command’. These are just tools to move the plot along at a good pace.

Alex, so much woolly thinking... you could knit a jumper!

/Proof for the existence of the soul, as with afterlife, is impossible to find through scientific methods. We have spirituality and religion to help us understand our place in the universe where science can not reach./

How can spirituality prove the existence of the soul? Do tell. If it can’t then you have to admit it is just wishful thinking.

/The spiritual worldview is seperate from the scientific world view, but the two can exist in harmony./

Not when it encroaches on scientific findings e.g. creating the world in 7 days. Or are you one of those that pick and choose what bits of the bible to believe? This is a god of the gaps approach and the gaps are getting smaller.

/I am interested in spirituality because the more I experience it the more I am convinced it is real, there are millions of people who are alot smarter than me who have also found a profound meaning in religion./

What does that prove, there are also a lot of people a lot smarter than you who reject the delusion of religion.

/It is ones heart that makes one accept the gospel, not just the head./

The heart is a pump, is that what you think with?

/Tolkein says of the Gospels that 'Thereis no tale a good man would rather believe is true.'/

Very astute of Tolkien ‘the gospels are wishful thinking’.

/By trying to know the one God one is drawn to goodness and love./

How can you know what by your own definition is unknowable? And if you point to the bible you will not find goodness and love there, as many on this post have pointed out, this text (cobbled together over many years by people who had no understanding of the world) is full of horrible deeds and violence towards women and children.

/The ten commandmentsand Jesus's addition to them on the mount are a guide to goodness./

The 10 commandments are not about morality. They are about religion trying to perpetuate itself by the indoctrination of children. You would think that the top commandment would be not to kill but no. Out of the ten available the first four (!) are all about having no other god and not worshiping other idols etc. Then an insipid honour your parents (again perpetuating the religion). You have to wait till number 6 before thou shall not kill and number ten is a commandment not to ‘covet’ (is this the thought police?) ... Marks out of ten? Let’s be generous and say 3 ‘could do better’!

/by loving the one God you obey him and stay away from sin, and are lead to love./

Wow!
Hey, here’s an idea, why not love many gods? Then you would be even further from sin and get to love even quicker!

A show of hands was asked for... I love pink axioms!

Alex wrote:

We dont even know if the soul exists, how are we meant to know how or when it is formed? You must be absolutely certain that it doesnt exist, if you are willing to mock the possibility.

It sounds as if you’re saying that you are not sure if the soul exists but that we had better not mock it just in case it does exist. We wouldn’t want to temp the wrath of god (if he does exist.) Let’s play safe. Sounds like the best bet, maybe even a wager...? Is that where Christian morality comes from, the fear of god seeing everything you do? No wonder you are asking about other moralities, they certainly need something better than the childish ten commandments.

Cop out Alex.

It was you that said:

”I dont think that this understanding of morality or conscience is just a product of evolution”.

You also said that “agape” and “selfless altruism” is in humans but not animals.

If it didn’t get into humans by evolution you must be postulating some other route. Come clean and tell us. When did it appear, was it in Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus. Was it in the first Homo sapiens or did it appear at a particular point in Homo sapiens’s ancestry? And if it’s not a product of evolution how did it get there? And if it’s not in our genes to pass on how does it get into the next generation?

Alex, If this understanding of morality or conscience is not a product of evolution then where did it come from?

Was it inserted into Adam and Eve by god and then passed on to their offspring or is it inserted new into each fertilised human egg at the same time as the soul?

Brian,

You misunderstand and misrepresent my position. Strawman examples about empathising with a hammer is just an absurd way to argue. Then saying ‘Relying thus upon empathy gets you either that all action is bad, or that no action is bad’. Well which is it? Do you know what you are talking about?

I maintain that caring for other people is right. This is based on an emotional and empathic viewpoint.

If you had your way you would say people are ruining the planet and causing widespread extinctions of other species. Logically we should wipe out all the people. You are the one using utilitarianism!

Brian! Oh so cold! You are trying to be like Spock: reason without emotion.

Also you need to either use words you understand or read other people’s posts carefully. I was in no way ‘Arguing for utilitarianism’. [Definition: the doctrine that the morality of actions is to be tested by their utility.]

If anything I was arguing the opposite case! We are moral animals and we are so as a result of evolution. This morality is largely based on emotion and empathy. This can also be seen in other social animals, most notably in other apes but also in many mammals from elephants to dogs. We (and they) have a sense of fair play, an ability to keep track of who helps who in the group and an empathy with others.

What we have extra is the law. This is where rationality comes in and it is used in cases where people can’t agree between themselves. However, this is usually a last resort and even then we want the law to be tempered with compassion. Do you agree or should the law be totally cold?

Jennifer, you say that you use logic and reason to make moral decisions.

I don’t think that’s enough, I think you need to also use emotion, feelings and empathy. These are gifts from our evolution as gregarious social animals and indeed it is the possession of these attributes that make us moral animals in the first place. Often you know what’s right in a situation almost without having to think about it. Yes logic helps too but usually only to double check your first thoughts.

One thing you get if you use logic by itself is sweeping statements (like war is wrong) that can’t cover all situations in our muddled and complex world and having once made such a statement you find you have to defend it at all costs, you back yourself into a corner like that. What would you do for instance if another country, ruled by a psychopathic dictator, sent his tanks into your country? (Iraq Invading Kuwait for instance?)

There was a study done where people were told that a train was heading fast and out of control straight for another train parked in a station and full of people. The resulting crash would cause many deaths. They were then told that they could pull a leaver and divert the train onto a different track but that there was a man working on the track with his back to the train who would be killed if that happened. Almost everybody said they would pull the leaver.

They were then given another scenario. This time they could prevent the crash if they pushed a man off a bridge into the path of the oncoming train. This time nobody would push the man, hence they would let the bad crash occur.

These results were repeated across a number of different cultures and a number of different religions (including people with no religion). It was always the same, act in the first case and don’t in the second, even though acting in both cases results in only one death and saves many.

These questions are not easy but luckily we don’t need to make them most of the time. I find hypothetical moral problems very difficult to analyse. My instinct is to take each real problem separately as it occurs and look at the actual situation. And then use both logic and emotion.