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

StephenB asked:
“How many atheists do you know who will defend the life of an unborn baby?
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. 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?Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

In #135 Clive Hayden wrote:
"...in the end, at the point of anything being meaningfully understood as being right or wrong, happens on the individual level with each person, so you’ve still got the difficulty of explaining just how people come to any conclusion on anything other than whatever standards evolution has given them to work with."
Evolution cannot provide any "standards" for right and wrong at all. Even attempting to do so is to commit the "naturalistic fallacy" of which G. E. Moore (and David Hume before him) warned. It is both illogical and illegitimate to derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement. Ethical prescriptions are either justified deontologically (i.e. by their internal logical coherence and "universalizability") or teleologically (i.e. by their effects), or both. Neither of these systems of ethical justification are based on any form of evolutionary determinism, nor are they necessarily based on any religious principles whatsoever.Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "How many atheists do you know who will defend the life of an unborn baby? Nat Hentoff - he is a journalist and atheist, and ardently opposes abortion (and euthanasia too I believe). He wrote very articulately on his views on abortion in a recent edition of Free Inquiry - he's a frequent op-ed contributor. I wasn't able to find it online, but there's plenty of information about him on the web.JTaylor_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

In #131 Clive Hayden asked: "And what, exactly, about human thought and human behavior are not accountable to evolutionary biology?" The short list: • Aesthetics • Epistemology • Ethics • Law (common and legislative) • Logic • Mathematics • Metaphysics • Ontology • Religion (including philosophy of religion) That is, almost all of human thought, developed over thousands of years through cultural trial and error learning. But feel free to go back and set up your straw man again...Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

A great deal of most people's moral viewpoint is cultural - if you had been born and raised as an African bushman, you would have a different moral perspective, but you would have a moral perspective of some sort. All human cultures ever studied have deeply embedded ideas about what is right and wrong on many levels and in many areas. It is part of human nature to have a moral perspective (for all but a very small number of sociopathological individuals), but the nature of that perspective is very much a product of culture. However, there are elements of morality that seem to appear rather universally, especially in the wisdom traditions that arise as people of great intellect and moral insight address the issues of morality - there are common themes that are cross-cultural.A great deal of most people's moral viewpoint is cultural - if you had been born and raised as an African bushman, you would have a different moral perspective, but you would have a moral perspective of some sort. All human cultures ever studied have deeply embedded ideas about what is right and wrong on many levels and in many areas. It is part of human nature to have a moral perspective (for all but a very small number of sociopathological individuals), but the nature of that perspective is very much a product of culture. However, there are elements of morality that seem to appear rather universally, especially in the wisdom traditions that arise as people of great intellect and moral insight address the issues of morality - there are common themes that are cross-cultural. Another major factor is that moral systems are usually limited in scope: what is moral within my group (tribe, nation, etc,) is not necessarily applied to people outside my group. Some individuals rise above this us/them moral split, and thus inspire others, but the majority apply a different set of moral rule to their group than they do to a least some “enemy” groups. All of what I have written is, I think, factually true, from an anthropological viewpoint. Another major factor is thhazel_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

diffaxial in #108: Thank you: I stand corrected.Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial, "Ratcheting cultural innovation (cultural evolution) is something quite other than biological evolution. Huge swaths of human behavior result from cultural innovation rather than biological evolution." I don't see how, because in the end, at the point of anything being meaningfully understood as being right or wrong, happens on the individual level with each person, so you've still got the difficulty of explaining just how people come to any conclusion on anything other than whatever standards evolution has given them to work with. There is no universal consciousness. There is only individual, and that individual understanding of a culture or an innovation or a de-innovation is something provided by evolution. Taking the problem and making it aggregate doesn't solve it.Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

In #97 tribune7 asked:
"Or if you want to make it universal, if we establish that there is no divine command not to murder, will we be safer, better off, more enlightened etc. as some seem to insist?"
Yes. To be very specific, there is no "divine" command in Buddhism not to murder, because there is no "divine" anything in Buddhism. Or are you arguing that Buddhists are, as a group, inclined to be depraved murderers?Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

BarryA:
What utter piffle. Go to the back of the class. You write this as if you have no idea that a culture is made up of nothing but the choices of its human members, which, if evolution is true, are in turn driven by nothing but mindless mechanical necessity and chance.
The fact that you speak English rather than Chinese or the Indo-European protolanguage reflects the culture into which you were born rather than any choices you made. Countless other facts of your life similarly reflect immersion in other dimensions of your cultural heritage, which themselves emerged and changed over centuries, millennia, and tens of millennia, often accumulating techniques and technologies by means of what has been called "the ratchet effect" (See Tomasello's book The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition). All of us are similarly immersed in an ocean cultural facts that, like languages, technologies, and kinship systems vary widely from society to society and over time. Cultural objects and behaviors such as davenports, baseball, haiku, foot binding, hang-gliding, barber shop quartets, beer, and governments have roots in cultural innovation, not biological evolution. Individual behavior inescapably reflects, in part, immersion in one's culture. There is nothing inherently "materialist" or "non materialist" about this observation.Diffaxial_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

IN #88 Clive Hayden asked:
"So how does evolution help us to find “real” values, that we can reference objectively, and use as our standard when condemning other aspects of evolutionary behavior?"
It doesn't. The criteria upon which we base ethical and moral prescriptions cannot be derived from any "naturalistic" theory of human behavior. This was convincingly demonstrated by G. E. Moore a century ago, in his formulation of what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy". Again, nice straw man, easily knocked down. Do you have any real arguments, or are you just in it for the rhetoricals?Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, "Yes, indeed, you are wrong. There are a great many things in the universe, and in human behavior and thought that are not accountable by evolutionary biology. And thanks for giving me the chance to knock down yet another ridiculous straw man…" Ummm, what do the number of things in the universe have to do with anything pertaining to our "evolved" sensibilities? And what, exactly, about human thought and human behavior are not accountable to evolutionary biology? I would love for you to knock down a straw man, but I haven't seen one around lately. What does, exactly, account for the human behavior and thought if not evolution?Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

In #85 Barry Arrington wrote:
"In [56] Allan MacNeill acknowledges there is no reason to single out religious belief for special opprobrium. It is good to know that Allan disagrees with Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. Good for him."
Indeed, on this point I do disagree with Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. Furthermore, I would like to point out that none of these people are evolutionary biologists. Daniel Dennett is a philosopher whose grasp of evolutionary theory is only slightly better than that of most philosophers (i.e. not all that great), Richard Dawkins is (for lack of a better term) an "evolutionary philosopher" (i.e. he has never done a field observation or laboratory experiment in evolutionary biology in his entire career), Christopher Hitchens is a journalist, and Sam Harris is a graduate student in neurobiology. By contrast, Stephen Jay Gould was one of the premier evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, and did not (and almost certainly would not) agree with any of the "new atheists" listed. Indeed, he was well known for his ongoing feud with Richard Dawkins, based at least partly on disagreements over precisely the topic of this thread.Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

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.
Obviously there is no sense in talking to someone who is so certain that he is right, and so certain that I can't possible be right. I believe I've bumped into this problem before.hazel_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

As dissatisfying as that answer is to theists, I think that is the only honest thing to say. Its the same thing as my answer to people who ask me where the universe came from if there is no God. I respond with "I don't know, but neither do you". Just as invoking a god doesn't immediately solve the problems of the origin of the universe, invoking a god doesn't immediately solve the very real problems of free will and moral justification. The religious viewpoint is not automatically validated if I cannot provide a bulletproof comprehensive solution.DanSLO_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

In #82 Clive Hayden asked:
"I thought that evolution accounted for everything, am I wrong?"
Yes, indeed, you are wrong. There are a great many things in the universe, and in human behavior and thought that are not accountable by evolutionary biology. And thanks for giving me the chance to knock down yet another ridiculous straw man...Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

StephenB, do you want, in hazel's words, "to really understand an alternative view," or do you merely want to "prove such an alternative view . . . invalid"? Your answer suggests the latter.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

----Hazel: "I could discuss it, but you wouldn’t accept my reasoning and you’re not really interested in knowing who I am as a human being, I don’t think, and I don’t have black-and-white airtight logical answers (because I don’t believe such exist.)" 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. ----Hazel: "As Diffaxial said, we would just be talking past each other unless your goal was to really understand an alternative view rather than prove such an alterbative view was invalid." Obviously, Diffaxial has the same problem that you have, i.e., neither of you can provide a rational justification for your moral code, so you are reduced to saying that you do have one but no one would understand or accept it. Both of you labor endlessly to launch illogical attacks on perfectly good arguments about objective morality, but when the time comes to provide an alternative foundation you retire into the shadows.StephenB_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Barry writes:
Dave Wisker writes: “And some have no faith yet do not kill because they have the capacity for empathy, and would not inflict on others what they would not want inflicted on themselves.” OK Dave. What is your point? That not all atheists are cold-blooded killers? Again, you are responding to an argument that was never made. No one said they were. Would you care to address the point of the post or do you concede it?
No, Barry, that wasn't my point, and had you included what I wrote in the context of the specific quote I was referring to, my point would have been immediately obvious.Dave Wisker_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Why is it, then, that you and your colleagues cannot tell us where that place is?
I could discuss it, but you wouldn't accept my reasoning and you're not really interested in knowing who I am as a human being, I don't think, and I don't have black-and-white airtight logical answers (because I don't believe such exist.) As Diffaxial said, we would just be talking past each other unless your goal was to really understand an alternative view rather than prove such an alterbative view was invalid.hazel_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "Ratcheting cultural innovation (cultural evolution) is something quite other than biological evolution. Huge swaths of human behavior result from cultural innovation rather than biological evolution." That's like saying that its the wet sidewalks that clean the streets and not the rain.StephenB_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Good point DanSLO. Anybody who thinks Christians (for example) agree on, say, free will doesn't know the first thing about religious history. That said, I must insist: my Christian view of free will is correct and coherent. Yours, however, is bunk.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

----Hazel: "Just because one believes that one’s values stem from some objective truth from God doesn’t mean that in fact either God or those objective values exist. Those who don’t believe in God have others way of understanding where our moral sense come -" Why is it, then, that you and your colleagues cannot tell us where that place is?StephenB_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Barry says:
I miss Nietzsche atheists. Nietzsche’s world was bleak, as it necessarily had to be, but at least he had the courage to face it squarely and follow his logic where it led him instead of where his Christianized (in the socialization sense) sensibilities told him he should prefer to go. Modern atheists don’t seem to have the same courage
Translation: "I wish atheists were as immoral as my worldview says they should be."David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

You act as if you have a coherent and compelling alternative. We've got about a dozen complex questions bouncing around here about morality, ethics, free will, culture, psychology and plenty more that people have puzzled over for thousands of years, and you're surprised that its a bit murky? I don't feel that religion solves any of the problems that have been raised, so your demand that we provide a solution is silly.DanSLO_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

I'm an atheist, and I see no reason that therefore I have to be Nietzschian. For one thing, one can be an atheist but not a materialist, but that is secondary to the more important point. No matter who you are, theist, atheist, materialist or whatever, our values are grounded and nourished in much more than logic. Just because one believes that one’s values stem from some objective truth from God doesn’t mean that in fact either God or those objective values exist. Those who don’t believe in God have others way of understanding where our moral sense come - the fact that the theist’s logic finds our reasons deficient in their eyes doesn’t mean to much me because I don’t accept the theist’s framework. I don’t look at a person’ belief system - I look at their actions irrespective of how they frame the reasons for their actions. If one believes that it is important to be honest with others, for instance, then I don’t care why you think that - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, New age spiritualist, whatever, it’s how you choose to act that counts in my eyes.hazel_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial writes: “Ratcheting cultural innovation (cultural evolution) is something quite other than biological evolution. Huge swaths of human behavior result from cultural innovation rather than biological evolution.” What utter piffle. Go to the back of the class. You write this as if you have no idea that a culture is made up of nothing but the choices of its human members, which, if evolution is true, are in turn driven by nothing but mindless mechanical necessity and chance. Is this the best you’ve got? At the end of the day is there really no one able or willing to give us a serious argument to chew on?Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, why do you assume I have not read Gould. I have. I am simply unconvinced. No matter how earnestly a materialist wishes it were otherwise, he cannot can sit on the branch of materialism and at the same time levitate above the branch and examine it from a non-determinist perspective. You should be skeptical too. That you are not is interesting, but not surprising. I miss Nietzsche atheists. Nietzsche’s world was bleak, as it necessarily had to be, but at least he had the courage to face it squarely and follow his logic where it led him instead of where his Christianized (in the socialization sense) sensibilities told him he should prefer to go. Modern atheists don’t seem to have the same courage.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Clive @ 111:
I said “something else” other than evolution.
I take the "evolution" in "something other than evolution" as "biological evolution." Ergo, "Something other than biological evolution." Ratcheting cultural innovation (cultural evolution) is something quite other than biological evolution. Huge swaths of human behavior result from cultural innovation rather than biological evolution.Diffaxial_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

David, I really am interested in what that is, from the perspective of folks that don't yet see the fundamental incoherence and contradiction. So, I'd like to hear it. You're not answering my question by talking about my motives.Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

I guess there's no need to read what Gould actually wrote when you can proclaim his "self-referential incoherence" from a distance.David Kellogg_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply