Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

April 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Some [men] kill because their faiths explicitly command them to do so, some kill though their faiths explicitly forbid them to do so, and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill – indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted. Men kill for their gods, or for their God, or because there is no God and the destiny of humanity must be shaped by gigantic exertions of human will . . .

Men will always seek gods in whose name they may perform great deeds or commit unspeakable atrocities . . . Then again, men also kill on account of money, land, love, pride, hatred, envy or ambition.

Does religious conviction provide a powerful reason for killing? Undeniably it often does. It also often provides the sole compelling reason for refusing to kill, or for being merciful, or for seeking peace; only the profoundest ignorance of history could prevent one from recognizing this. For the truth is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions, 12-13

Can anyone possibly doubt that these claims are true. They are practically self-evident. Thus, the currency of the “religion is the cause of all violence” dogma currently fashionable among the new atheists is all but inexplicable on rational grounds.

Comments

We have two different meanings of objective here, I think. 1. When Barry et al speak of objective truths, I think they are talking about transcendental Truths, with a capital T, that not only exist apart from any one person but exist apart from physical reality entirely, probably in the mind of God. Such truths are self-evident to us by virtue of our God-given reason. If I have mischaracterized this position, I would be happier to here a better description. 2. When one speaks of science as dealing in objective truths, I think we mean truths, with a decidedly little t, that have been reached by consensus based on empirical evidence, based on our senses of the external world. I think these are two fairly different meanings and usages of the word "objective."hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

How can we at once declare there are no objective truths yet science is supposedly based on the objective assessment of evidence? Am I mistaken here? If not, why the dichotomy?Oramus_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Another point: the point of discussion doesn't have to be argument. Sometimes it's useful for people with differing viewpoints to just share, as best they can, what their viewpoint is without feeling like they have to argue for or against anything. This can be a constructive thing to do.hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Barry write:
This site is devoted to the search for truth through argumentation. Argumentation depends upon the application of reason to evidence. The process absolutely depends upon the existence of objective truth.
The most important writers of the last century on argumentation (Chaim Perelman and Stephen Toulmin) suggest otherwise. There can be all sorts of agreement short of "objective truth." In fact, every agreement is.David Kellogg_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Barry says,
In [223] Hazel finally admits that she does not “believe in the world of objective truths.” Hazel, you are a deeply irrational person. This site is devoted to the search for truth through argumentation. Argumentation depends upon the application of reason to evidence. The process absolutely depends upon the existence of objective truth. You have stated that you do not believe in objective truth. All you want to do is make assertions, which you then refuse to defend on logical or evidential grounds. Thus, arguing with you is utterly pointless. Move along to another site.
Barry, I don't know whether you've following any of the other threads I've been on, but my position from the beginning, last November I believe, is that as an atheist I don't believe in any transcendental source of "objective truth," and I've spent a lot of time discussing that position. I have defended many positions here on both logic and evidential grounds: my position is that you need both logic and evidence to get truth, and that that truth is always at least in theory provisional. You may disagree with these positions, but they are positions held by many, including other people who discuss here. Today I have asserted that I believe in inherent human dignity, but that I don't want to get into the reasons for that with StephenB: I just finished being a part of a 700 post thread with him, and that's enough for me for now. I'll quit responding to his posts, if that helps.hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Hazel, as I pointed out at 46, theists accept an objective moral roadmap in the form of the natural moral law; atheists don’t. I went on to explain how that works . Among other things, I exlained very carefully that Christians believe that humans are made in the "image and likeness of God." It is on that basis that they hold to the "inherent dignity of the human persons." To that you wrote, ----"Those who don’t believe in God have others way of understanding where our moral sense come" That statement either means something or it doesn't. Your moral sense either comes from someplace or it doesn't. If you have "your colleagues have you own ways of understanding where that place is" but cannot explain it to anyone else, then your own way is not very useful is it? Now you write: -----"I believe that I have good reasons, based on a variety of rationales, for the values I hold, but as I have explained, since I don’t believe in the world of objective truths like you do, my reasons would never meet your standards." You either have rational reasons or you don't. Naturally, I doubt that you do, but, who knows, life is full of surprises. ---Hazel: "I don’t believe we need to keep coming back to that point." It was you who raised the objection and issued the challenge.StephenB_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Is't it intereting that Darwinians like Allen MacNeill freely invade the weblogs of Creationists but banish them willy nilly from their own bastions. How many Creationists (like myself) have survived Pharyngula, richarddawkins.net, EvC, Panda's Thumb, The Loom or The Evolution List? I have been banished from them all only because I have discarded the Darwinian fairy tale as did every one of my sources. This has nothing to do with civility as MacNeill keeps whining. This is intellectual bigotry displayed in naked fashion. I don't understand what Uncommon Descent hopes to gain by this unilateral policy of encouraging its mortal enemies to present their Godless convictions. There is only one way to deal with Darwinians. It is to continually expose them as congenital, rationally hamstrung victims of their predestined fate to be useless members of the scientific community. Both individually and as a group they have contributed absolutely nothing of value to our understanding of the twin mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny, absolutely nothing. Neither have their mortal enemies the Biblical Fundamentalists. "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." Albert Einstein There now, I feel somewhat better.JohnADavison_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

In [223] Hazel finally admits that she does not "believe in the world of objective truths." Hazel, you are a deeply irrational person. This site is devoted to the search for truth through argumentation. Argumentation depends upon the application of reason to evidence. The process absolutely depends upon the existence of objective truth. You have stated that you do not believe in objective truth. All you want to do is make assertions, which you then refuse to defend on logical or evidential grounds. Thus, arguing with you is utterly pointless. Move along to another site.Barry Arrington_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Hey Stephen, I did not "insist that atheists also have a rational justification for believing the same thing." In fact I started 117 by writing,
No matter who you are, theist, atheist, materialist or whatever, our values are grounded and nourished in much more than logic.
If I have "insisted" anything, it is that I don't accept your ideas about "air tight logic," "self-evident truths," and so on. I don't believe we need to keep coming back to that point. I believe that I have good reasons, based on a variety of rationales, for the values I hold, but as I have explained, since I don't believe in the world of objective truths like you do, my reasons would never meet your standards.hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

----Allen: "All of the atheists I know would do this, including my wife. We did everything we could to save the life of our unborn child, but lost her anyway. Her name was Cynara and she died in utero three years ago this month." I am sorry to hear that, but your statement proves nothing. The issue is not how people act when they want a child; they issue is how they act when they DON'T. It is typically the ACLU atheists who insist that babies have no rights. " ----"So, stephenB, got any more self-righteous character assassination up your sleeve, or are you simply going to repeat the same baseless and insulting garbage over and over and over again?" It is not a baseless charge. Atheists are less likely to defend life in the womb. This is news to you? Who do you think it is that does all the pro-life lobbying? It isn't the atheists.StephenB_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Clive:
How do atheists and materialists derive any “ought,” for all that exists is the “is” by their scheme? I would really like to know the answer to this question.
Referencing my comment vis incompatible frameworks that appeared on the "Quote of the Day" thread, the atheist response to your question, directed to the religiously inclined, is in the neighborhood of, "The same way you do." Their response is to argue that religious assertions of "morality derived from God," from organized religion, and from religious traditions are no less human inventions than explicitly humanist creeds - although they are burdened with fewer fictions and are more honest about their human and cultural origins. The bottom line, from this perspective, is that we are all in the same boat with respect to the human origins of moral codes of conduct - although some of us aren't aware of it. Of course believers take umbrage at this argument. But it is internally coherent. Therefore the key question cannot be, "Which viewpoint yields a more valid and justifiable morality" - because the answer one gives depends upon the framework from which one answers. The key question really is, "do you believe in God" - e.g., which organizing framework do you accept. Everything else follows from your response to that question.
If the answer I get is “from cultural evolution” that’s just another way of saying “from a bunch of individuals put together”–as if the fact of their being together magically produces the “ought” as an emergent quality of a group of more than one person. I don’t see how that would work, for any judgment of morality is only discerned by the individuals.
As I noted in the previous thread, your view of culture is decidedly reductionistic, and, in a very real sense, materialist - much more so than my own. The notion that "thoughts are only biochemistry" should be quite congenial to you, as it reflects exactly the same sort of reductionism.Diffaxial_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

----Hazel: "I am not protesting - I’m just telling you that I’m not going to try to explain to you why I believe what I do. That’s my privilege - like everyone else here I can choose what topics I want to discuss." Hey, you are doing the driving. I explained that Christians have a meaningful rational justification for believing that humans have dignity. You attacked that argument on the grounds of its presumed exclusivity and insisted that atheists also have a rational justification for believing the same thing. So, naturally, I asked you what that might be. Since you obviously don't have one, maybe you should have just remained silent.StephenB_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Yes, I understand that it is based on your wishes, but what if someone else’s wishes conflict with yours. Why should the wishes of those who prefer the golden rule be honored over the wishes of those who prefer “might makes right?” ----Adel Dibagno: "To keep the peace. To have a civil society. No gods needed." But the tyrants don't want a civil society, they want to make slaves of you and me. Why should they accept your golden rule when they have already decided that they need not abide by it. By what standard to you tell them that they have no right to enslave you? They say they have every right to do it because they have more power. You may prefer to be free, but they prefer that you should be a slave. People has always wanted to be free, but usually to no avail. Why should the tyrant honor your wishes?StephenB_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, "Please cite an evolutionary psychology text where anything like your ridiculous caricature is asserted. I suggest you start with the following:" That's your answer? I could suggest a reading list for you too, but I won't defer to others, I will actually argue the point. If we are evolved beings, how do we know what is right and what is wrong using evolution as our guide? And there is evolutionary psychology literature that claims that our sense of morality, our sense of dignity, freedom, our religious beliefs or lack thereof, are a result of evolution. How is evolution at once our guide and our trickster if it is to give us contradictory belief systems? By what scheme do you provide, what matrix, what standard applied, that discerns between what evolutionary standards of behaviour should be followed in the teeth of opposing standards? How do we bring to our study of behaviour which behaviours should be followed and which shouldn't? I'm really interested in this answer, because I really do believe that evolutionary psychology itself is a non-starter when determining anything metaphysical.Clive Hayden_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial, "There is considerable irony in this statement, as stating that “culture is just [can be reduced to] the collective of individuals” is reductionist in exactly the way that “love is only lust” and particularly “thoughts are only biochemistry” are reductionist. There is more to thought than biochemistry, and there is more to the phenomenon of human cultural innovation, transmission and expression than sum of the actions of individuals. Again, I don’t see anything particularly “materialist” or “antimaterialist” about this assertion. Clive, don’t look now, but on this topic YOU are the reductionist (Barry too). And that is why you are unable to grasp that considerable individual human behavior can be best understood in light of the history of the culture into which the one is born and in which one is immersed." Stating that a culture is just a collection of individuals is not the same sort of reductionist argument that Allen MacNeill was making, for he was faulting me with claiming that the laws of nature produce an ought, a category mistake. It is not a category mistake to say that a culture is a collection of individuals at all. What seems to be missing from these "cultural evolution" of morality statements is the glaringly obvious fact that culture is only a group of individuals--and that if the individuals don't already know how to behave, getting them into a group won't bring it about. If there is any cultural morality it is because the individuals in the group are already moral, and act accordingly. Let's keep first things first here. If there were no rules of football, it wouldn't matter how many players you had on the field for goodness sakes. This is so obvious as to be comical.Clive Hayden_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Re: angryoldfatman Then make it clear that you have no idea what the authors actually said, but that you are only criticizing their rabid fanboys (and there are a number of those, I will definitely grant you that).
Do you not want to eliminate religion, DanSLO? If you do, and it’s because it’s irrational and illogical but not dangerous, then you should push for tarot cards and horoscopes to be made illegal as well.
Well, yes, in the same way that everyone wishes the rest of the world acted and believed as they did. I certainly wouldn't want to make religion illegal or anything ridiculous like that (and neither would Dawkins and the rest of them). I don't like people wasting their time and money on religion any more than tarot cards and horoscopes either, but the proper way to do that is to educate people and change their minds, not by force. You'll find that most reasonable atheists, including all of those authors we're discussing, will hold some kind of view like this.DanSLO_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB [87]:
—-Adel Dibagno: “hazel can speak for hazel, but my position is based on the Golden Rule. I want to be treated as if I have dignity, and it would be unreasonable for me to treat others differently.” Yes, I understand that it is based on your wishes, but what if someone else’s wishes conflict with yours. Why should the wishes of those who prefer the golden rule be honored over the wishes of those who prefer “might makes right?”
To keep the peace. To have a civil society. No gods needed.Adel DiBagno_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Stephen say, "In spite of all your protests, you have only stated what you believe but you have not told me why you believe it." I am not protesting - I'm just telling you that I'm not going to try to explain to you why I believe what I do. That's my privilege - like everyone else here I can choose what topics I want to discuss. Stephen writes, "Thank you. You have just answered my question with your silence. Even though you claim to believe in the inherent dignity of the human person, you are not willing to grant that status to the unborn baby." No, I answered no question with my silence - that is a presumptuous thing to think. There are lots of questions you might ask me that I wouldn't answer. Looking at this backwards, how do you feel about war? Is this a question you want to discuss with me? If not, should I honor your decision, or should I decide that by your silence I know what your answer is? Which of those two is the right thing to do, do you think?hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Is a fertilized egg that has not yet implanted in the uterine wall an "unborn baby" under your definition?Ludwig_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

----Hazel: "As I have said before, and don’t want to keep repeating, Stephen is absolutely convinced he is right and I am wrong, whatever my beliefs, and therefore I see no sense in trying to explain myself. I will start with “humans have inherent dignity.” Stephen can have his reasons for believing that, which I don’t agree with, and I have mine, which he doesn’t agree with." In spite of all your protests, you have only stated what you believe but you have not told me why you believe it. I am not asking you to repeat anything. I am asking you to state for the first time why you think humans have dignity or where they get it or why we should believe that they do. ----Hazel: "By the way, I did have some things to say on this topic back on 117." (On the rational justification for morality) Yes, you did say many things, but none of them had anything to do with my question. ----Hazel: "And in response to [D}, how do you feel about war and capital punishment, Stephen? Against them I assume, out of respect for human dignity?" Thank you. You have just answered my question with your silence. Even though you claim to believe in the inherent dignity of the human person, you are not willing to grant that status to the unborn baby.StephenB_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

This is for the Darwinians with which this thread is so blessed, especially those who are fans of Richard Dawkins. There is not a word in all of Dawkin's books that ever had anything to do with the MECHANISM of an undeniable past organic evolution, not a word. The same can be said for "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould, "The Growth of Biological Thought" by Ernst Mayr and of course the fantasy that started this whole debacle, "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin It has only been the MECHANISM that has ever been in question. What we have witnessed for the last century and half is nothing more than a prolonged mass hysteria fueled by six generations of congenital atheists who became convinced as part of the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" that God was no longer necessary to explain our origins. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything we have learned since Darwin pleads for a planned, determined, ascending phylogeny in which chance played no role whatsoever, just as it played no role in ontogeny in the past as in the present. The recombination of genetic factors in sexual reproduction is INCOMPETENT to produce even new verifiable species, let alone any higher taxa. Mendelian genetics, random mutation and Natural Selection are all anti-evolutionary, serving only either to prevent change or to hasten extinction. Without extinction there could never have been any evolution. Past extinctions would have taken place with or without environmental catastrophes. Extinction was an integral feature of a planned phylogeny. These are not idle whims on my part but firmly established experimental realities as well as the silent testimony of the fossil record, the final arbiter of evolutionary reality. To debate the Darwinians is a monumental waste of time. They are impervious to debate, immune to reason and unconscious to the real world which surrounds them. They no longer even defend their silly proposition, knowing it is without foundation. Helpless "prescribed" ideologues that they are, they now do the only thing that they MUST do which is to relentlessly attack the only conceivable alternative to atheist Darwinism, a planned phylogeny which I believe terminated with the appearance of Homo sapiens no more than one hundred thousand years ago. They can't help themselves. They are "born to lose" losers. Christ recognized such pathetic creatures - "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." Two thousand year later they still don't. It is the forgiving that is the tough part. I find it most difficult myself as one can no doubt tell. "Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." George Orwell. 1984 "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohnADavison_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

tribune7: I started elementary school in the 1950s (in 1955, to be precise), and for my entire childhood we not only started each day with a prayer, we all went to religious instruction in the afternoon (the church was right across the street). Do the math: I'm a "boomer", right? One of those people who, according to your description, "created an environment that led to massive drug abuse, suicides, loveless sex and a generally nihilistic atmosphere that eventually even resulted in murder." So, how do you explain this? Furthermore, how do you explain the simple, empirical fact that crime rates have fluctuated wildly over the past 50 years, and have not been correlated in any way with the presence or absence of religious instruction in the public schools or the public square? As just one example, New England is widely recognized as one of the least religious regions in the United States. It also has one of the lowest regional crime rates and divorce rates in the United States. By contrast, the states of the former Confederacy have both the highest rates of church attendance and the highest crime and divorce rates in the United States. What I conclude from this is that there is no necessary relationship between religious belief, religious practice, and morality (as reflected in crime and divorce rates).Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

JTaylor --But given the amount of religious participation in the UK today, one could argue that the best way to kill spiritual interest is for the state to interfere in such a manner. You are right. OTOH, I grew up attending American schools and was pounded with evolutionary (and Freudian and various pop-psych) dogma with nary a nod towards any sort of respect for religious tradition. And this created an environment that led to massive drug abuse, suicides, loveless sex and a generally nihilistic atmosphere that eventually even resulted in murder. I'm convinced that starting the day with a quick voluntary prayer and maybe hearing a little scripture would have gone long way to making things a bit more pleasant. Granted, I may not have wound up quite so zealous in my Christian belief, but I would trade some of the zeal for avoiding a lot of the misery I saw. I think there is a middle road.tribune7_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

It is clear that the answer to both questions is that overall a society thoroughly infused with not just religious belief, but with Christian belief (and by “Christian belief,” I mean the actual ethical beliefs taught by Jesus, Very true Barry. Culture matters. Even Jefferson, who did not believe in miracles, was a proponent of a Christian society. Theology is not something one should impose on another but values are something that certainly should be. And anyone who wants to argue about it should remember that the claim "theology is not something one should impose on another" is a value.tribune7_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

tribune7: "Further it is my understanding that in many European countries — such as Sweden and the U.K. — they start the school day with prayer." I grew up in the UK and that was certainly the case (not so sure about today as I no longer live then). In fact it was more than prayer - it was complete 15-minute assembly, complete with hymns, prayers and often a religious talk. The Jewish and Indian kids stayed in their classrooms while we had assembly. And this wasn't even a Church of England school, just a regular state-run school. But given the amount of religious participation in the UK today, one could argue that the best way to kill spiritual interest is for the state to interfere in such a manner. Certainly for myself and our classmates, because it was seen as an instutionalized obligation, it was something to discard and rebel against (and usually mess around in, often with alternative words to the hymns...)JTaylor_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Along with Hazel and Allen I'd like to offer my thoughts on Dawkins too. I do like a lot of what he has to say, but I also don't agree with everything. I think especially that his ideas about eliminating religion are misplaced. I think sometimes he wants it both ways - on the one hand he will admit that religion could be an artifcat of an earlier evolutionary process. But then he may go on to berate people who believe such things and label them as uneducated or even stupid. I think that's contradictory. The reality is that, human beings (or at least many of them) do seem disposed to be religious/spiritual. Why exactly that happens is probably not fully understood, but it does seem to fulfill a need (for some at least, but not at all for myself or others). It's completely unlikely it's going to disappear anytime soon (not in our livetimes at least). I wonder how much Dawkins really understands this. So while I respect Dawkins, I do not agree with him on all things. I also find his tone to be too shrill at times and not helpful to the debate.JTaylor_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Angryoldfatman, Can you please provide an example of where one of the "four horsemen" says that religion should "be made illegal"? I've never seen anyone make such a suggestion.Ludwig_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

DanSLO @ 194
I didn’t ignore the other two quotes. I addressed both of them in my post #50, and neither of them supported your argument.
Ah, pardon. Let's see what you had to say:
From #50 I’m not familiar with Charles Kimball and the Sam Harris quote says nothing about violence, but instead is talking about how the idea of religious tolerance often stifles criticism of religiously motivated violence. (As a side note, Harris and others don’t advocate institutionalized religious intolerance or discrimination, but rather a kind of social intolerance and a culture people feel freer to criticize religion). Even the Dawkins quote supports the quote in the original post. He’s saying that religion can provide a motivation for violence, not that it is the ONLY one or that if we get rid of religion we will eliminate violence.
I'll repeat what I said in #13: If the prominent atheists like Dawkins, Harris, et al, don’t believe religion causes all violence, they’re doing a poor job of informing their sycophants of it. Why do I say that? Because practically every "Four Horsemen" fanboy I've found on the internet has told me religion must be destroyed/eliminated to bring peace to the world. Are they reading the same books from Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens that you are? If so, they're getting a radically different message back from them than you are.
I’m not even sure what to say about all the personal attacks against me in the rest of your post.
They're only personal attacks if you fit the general description I gave.
I’m a layman too, yet somehow I still have time to read books, and I like to think that I am intellectually honest enough to avoid criticizing authors that I haven’t read. It blows me away that you’re still hammering away at this point and yet you still admit that you have no clue about what any of these authors actually wrote.
I'm criticizing the authors for the message I read/hear coming from the vast majority of their fanclubs. I'm also listening to the other things they say and do besides these handful of books they've written. Do you not want to eliminate religion, DanSLO? If you do, and it's because it's irrational and illogical but not dangerous, then you should push for tarot cards and horoscopes to be made illegal as well.angryoldfatman_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Allan MacNeil writes: “In other words, it seems as if one’s religious inclinations have virtually nothing to do with one’s behavior. Rather, people do what they are motivated to do, and then use their religion (or lack of it) as a rationalization after the fact.” Two occassions of agreement in one day. A record. This is undoubtedly true as a general rule. The first important question is, therefore, “what conditions result in the greatest number of people who are either not motiviated to do evil or are at least motivated to resist the motivation to do evil?” Refraining from evil is only part of an ideal ethic. A desire to perform active good is the second part. This is why “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is more sublime than “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.” Therefore, the second question is “what conditions result in the greatest number of people who are motivated to do active works of good such as acts of charity.” It is clear that the answer to both questions is that overall a society thoroughly infused with not just religious belief, but with Christian belief (and by “Christian belief,” I mean the actual ethical beliefs taught by Jesus, the most important of which is “love your neighbor as yourself”) best deters evil and motivates good. How many atheist charities do you know? How many atheist hospitals, or orphanages, or third world medical missions or (exampls could be multiplied) do you know?Barry Arrington_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Stephen writes to/about me:
[A] ???????????????????therefore [B] Humans have inherent dignity, therefore, [C] they ought not to be murdered. [D] [Does that include unborn babies?] I am not, therefore, refusing to understand Hazel’s position; I am asking for her to ARTICULATE IT. That means filling the blanks named [A} and [D} Are we clear now?
Earlier Stephen wrote to me,
I was simply pointing out that your assertion that there are “other ways of understanding where our [your] moral sense come [from?]” is clearly not true since there is no place that it can come from.
As I have said before, and don't want to keep repeating, Stephen is absolutely convinced he is right and I am wrong, whatever my beliefs, and therefore I see no sense in trying to explain myself. I will start with "humans have inherent dignity." Stephen can have his reasons for believing that, which I don't agree with, and I have mine, which he doesn't agree with. By the way, I did have some things to say on this topic back on 117. And in response to [D}, how do you feel about war and capital punishment, Stephen? Against them I assume, out of respect for human dignity?hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply