Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Dawkins displays his "sciencism" religion for all to see.
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
......
Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.
(If you want to read his full statement, click the link)
I guess in his world, we can't be held responsible for our religious beliefs. "Assigning blame and responsibility on theists for their beliefs is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live". So why does he spend so much time ridiculing theists and trying to convert them? Just look at the last sentence in the quote I posted to find the answer hehe.
roysr wrote:Dawkins displays his "sciencism" religion for all to see.
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
......
Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.
(If you want to read his full statement, click the link)
I guess in his world, we can't be held responsible for our religious beliefs. "Assigning blame and responsibility on theists for their beliefs is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live". So why does he spend so much time ridiculing theists and trying to convert them? Just look at the last sentence in the quote I posted to find the answer hehe.
This individual may have severe emotional deficiencies. He seems unable to understand basic human emotions and needs to learn to separate his science from his beleifs.
He may be a good writer when it comes to explaining evolutionary principals but his political and personal beliefs are atrocious and damaging in terms of possible social impact if ever it becomes mainstream..
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Jbuza wrote:This simply shows the lengths some go their whole lives to so that they can ease their consciences about what they instinctively know to be true.
Then Dawkins being an obviously "defective unit" shouldn't we "fix or replace" him? By his own words, of course.
I side with Bgood on this most deinitely, Dawkins is bereft of the standard and normalized regime of human emotional structures, and should be viewed as an aberration.
I also don't necessarily agree with many of his "scientific" views, as he and his associates have some rather questionable methodology.
"A woman, once educated, is man's superior." Socrates
"In taking no action, all under heaven is accomplished" Lao tse
I have to say, at least he is consistent. I have yet to hear a "moral atheist" explain the basis for his morality, (or for that matter his "reason".)
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN
Jbuza wrote:This simply shows the lengths some go their whole lives to so that they can ease their consciences about what they instinctively know to be true.
Then Dawkins being an obviously "defective unit" shouldn't we "fix or replace" him? By his own words, of course.
I side with Bgood on this most deinitely, Dawkins is bereft of the standard and normalized regime of human emotional structures, and should be viewed as an aberration.
I also don't necessarily agree with many of his "scientific" views, as he and his associates have some rather questionable methodology.
Well since his words are false, it seems to follow that his judgment on himself would also be false.
"Moral Atheist" - given that morals are only, and can (reasonably) only, be god-given (whence could they come otherwise:?), this is a contradition in terms, isn't it?
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Blind Electric Ray wrote:"Moral Atheist" - given that morals are only, and can (reasonably) only, be god-given (whence could they come otherwise:?), this is a contradition in terms, isn't it?
all human (and many animal) morals consistently center around one main point: if an action is helpful to the survival of the community, it is good; if an action is harmful to the survival of the community, it is bad.
modern morals are less drastic: actions that make the community more comfortable are good; actions that make the community less comfortable are bad. you can see this in almost every community on this planet, whether or not they are christian or believe in any kind of god at all.
all human (and many animal) morals consistently center around one main point: if an action is helpful to the survival of the community, it is good; if an action is harmful to the survival of the community, it is bad.
Animals have morals? Any evidence? And recall the words of Hume-one cannot find oughts and ought not's from is and is not's (paraphrase).
And how do morals help the survival of the community? Helping out the eldery, who are going to die and contribute very little to the community, somehow benefits our chances at survival?
Last edited by AttentionKMartShoppers on Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:59 am, edited 3 times in total.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
roysr wrote: I guess in his world, we can't be held responsible for our religious beliefs. "Assigning blame and responsibility on theists for their beliefs is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live". So why does he spend so much time ridiculing theists and trying to convert them? Just look at the last sentence in the quote I posted to find the answer hehe.
i don't think he is saying that people are not responsible for their actions (or that we are predetermined by our genes) but rather that it is an explanation of our free will and our personality. at least that is how i see it. to me, everything has to be able to be explained and many times it does not appear to agree with our presumed beliefs. but i think that if we think about it, we can see how it fits into our beliefs rather than contradicts them.
all human (and many animal) morals consistently center around one main point: if an action is helpful to the survival of the community, it is good; if an action is harmful to the survival of the community, it is bad.
Animals have morals? Any evidence? And recall the words of Hume-one cannot find oughts and ought nots from is and is nots (paraphrase).
i observe my cats feeling attachment to me, or curiosity, jealousy, happiness, etc. gorillas take care of each other in the wild, they know what is right and wrong in living together. any animal that cares for its young has morals (though very simple).
most of our morality is learned through life experience too. as a child we are constantly told what not to do, just like how you can train a dog.
i observe my cats feeling attachment to me, or curiosity, jealousy, happiness, etc.
That's personification. You are attributing human characteristics to animals.
gorillas take care of each other in the wild, they know what is right and wrong in living together. any animal that cares for its young has morals (though very simple).
Non sequitor.
1) Gorillas take care of their young
2) Unknown premise
____
Conclusion: Gorillas have morals.
As I just told you, you cannot determine what is moral by what is. If a gorilla cares for its young, how do you reach the conclusion that the gorilla thinks such an action is moral? Do explain. I just told you you can't do that.
most of our morality is learned through life experience too. as a child we are constantly told what not to do, just like how you can train a dog.
This simply begs the question.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
Blind Electric Ray wrote:"Moral Atheist" - given that morals are only, and can (reasonably) only, be god-given (whence could they come otherwise:?), this is a contradition in terms, isn't it?
Being raised in a Unitarian household I can tell you that they don't believe this to be so. They can get very complex trying to rationalize morality without a need for any higher power. Usually they try to show that any 'moral good' is at the end of the day based on personal gain or benefit to the species. Stealing for example is bad not because we don't want to do it but because we don't want others stealing from us. Adultry is bad because we don't want other people sleeping with our spouse. Things like that.
Please keep in mind in responding to me that I'm not proposing that these rationalizations are valid. I don't agree with them. I'm just illustrating them for the benefit of the discussion.
i observe my cats feeling attachment to me, or curiosity, jealousy, happiness, etc.
That's personification. You are attributing human characteristics to animals.
gorillas take care of each other in the wild, they know what is right and wrong in living together. any animal that cares for its young has morals (though very simple).
Non sequitor.
1) Gorillas take care of their young
2) Unknown premise
____
Conclusion: Gorillas have morals.
As I just told you, you cannot determine what is moral by what is. If a gorilla cares for its young, how do you reach the conclusion that the gorilla thinks such an action is moral? Do explain. I just told you you can't do that.
most of our morality is learned through life experience too. as a child we are constantly told what not to do, just like how you can train a dog.
This simply begs the question.
maybe you should define what morality is to you, then, because i really can't see what it would be other than what i have explained.
