|
tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 10:01:03 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
For the record, firm, i don't have any religion. Science is a useful research methodology, tho (please let me emphasise this bit) it has its limitations. I will admit to being fond of rational thinking, tho, like all approaches, it has its limitations.
I do profess to have ethics and to be guided by them.
BTW there may well be, imho, some non-rational justifications for religions. These might include (but are not limited to) social utility; that religions tend to develop desirable characteristics in people; that the amount of social good they facilitate outweighs their negatives; .... amongst others. These justifications exclude any theological content that any given religion may have ie they are independent of the belief system. Nor am i saying i necessarily agree that these justify religions. Any appropriate ethical system, including of course secular ethical systems might generate similar, or possibly far better outcomes. All i am saying is that such justifications could exist and could be argued.
So, reduced to its absolute minimum with all the risks that entails, all i am asserting in my last 2 posts is that religious belief is faith based and therefore irrational. All the major religions i am familiar with agree with that claim (tho they might choose to express it differently). Hardly controversial i would have thought.......
I hope this clarifies my position for you.
Thank you for the clear and cognizant post.
They are rare enough around here.
Some questions:
1. You acknowledge the possibility that religion may have some utility, but it's unclear if you therefore believe that religion actually has a place in society, or in the lives of people. Or is it a distraction, and on balance is a negative in human society and people's lives?
2. It does seem that you believe that any social utility can just as easily be reached by "Any appropriate ethical system, including of course secular ethical systems". What, exactly, is a "secular ethical system"?
3. Is it fair to say that you believe that religions are primarily based on "emotions", rather than logic, and that science and secular ethic systems are based on rationality and logic. but not emotions. Is this a fair summation?
4. What is the basis for your ethics, your moral sense of right and wrong? Where does it originate, from a purely scientific point of view?
Firm
1. Sorry it's impossible to answer this question directly.
Firstly, what people do in their private lives is not a matter of interest to me (as long as it's legal), and most certainly not a matter of judgement. There are as always exceptions to this - child abuse within a family unit might be one example. Generally, in their private lives, people can do whatever they choose as far as I am concerned.
If I evaluate religion according to its theological content, or its morality, or its social utility I come to different conclusions.
My principle objection to religion is based on its claim to absolute righteousness. History is replete with examples of catastrophes authorised by this claim - from Stalin and Pol Pot through to all the religiously inspired massacres. The people responsible for these catastrophes were all 100% convinced of their own self righteousness.
.
At the risk of over-simplifying, anything that claims to be absolutely right must be wrong (Godel's Theorem provides a logical proof of this if you are interested) and in my view, dangerous in the public sphere. Sooner or later it will lead directly to catastrophe. If the claim to absolute self-righteousness could somehow be excised from religious belief, then most of my issues with religion would disappear.
2. Examples of secular ethical systems include non-theistic streams of Buddhism, humanism and the legal system in any Western democracy (where Church-State separation applies). There are innumerable others and a potentially infinite number of possible ones.
It is possible (and not at all difficult) to construct an ethical system proceeding any reasonable and fair observation, axiom or principle. For example: from the axiom, "the greatest good of the greatest number is desirable", construct a set of rules to govern personal and public behaviour designed to produce optimal results. Most genuine attempts to do this will result in an ethical system that favours things like honesty, compassion, love, respect and so on, and disfavours things like violence, dishonesty hate rape etc.
There is simply no need to resort to deities to devise such systems. Indeed, it is possible to argue ( though i am not atm) that resorting to deities complicates this task rather than facilitates it. The claim by some apologists for various religions that religion is the sole basis for ethical codes or behaviour is arrogant, preposterous and utterly false.
Please go through the exercise yourself with one (or more) starting points of your own choosing ... I'd be delighted to hear your results.
Further, I would assert that systems that encourage people to develop autonomous responsible ethical systems along the lines outlined previously are inherently better and far more effective than those that rely on a system of rewards and punishments (eg Heaven and Hell, 21 virgins etc etc). A rough parallel might be that democracy is a superior system of government to dictatorship.
3. Sorry it is not a fair summation. Generally i try to avoid consideration of things on an 'either/or' basis. I usually find there are more than 2 options available when considering any given issue.
I do recognise that religious belief affords some believers some degree of emotional comfort. To my mind, this constitutes one of the better justifications for the existence of religions. It should be noted that this particular justification is entirely pragmatic, and in no way confirms the validity of that religion's theological (or truth) claims. There exist innumerable other means of potentially obtaining this emotional comfort. For myself, I have formed the view the price tag that accompanies religious belief (intellectual dishonesty, self-delusion) is far too high a price to pay.
4. My ethics can be deduced from the expression: "I like to be nice and I like others to be nice to me". I do my best to be guided by it but I would be the last person to claim that I always succeed.
Sorry it is quite impossible for me to identify its scientific origin if there is one - it's quite impossible for me to be objective about myself and objectivity is a pre-requisite for the practice of science as I understand it.
If you are seeking analyses of the origins of morality, this is more a matter of Philosophy than science. There exists an entire branch of Philosophy called Moral Philosophy. The most interesting analyses I have encountered are Neitzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" and the work of Michel Foucault on Power/Knowledge. BTW Foucault's work on sexuality is also fascinating (esp "The History of Sexuality Part 1") as well as highly influential imho.
I hope this answers all your questions satisfactorily.
Having answered all your questions as best i can , please grant me the privilege of answering mine (you will find the Reciprocal Principle one excellent foundation on which to construct a viable ethical system - please try it!):
Do you regard evidence based methods of understanding things as superior to those based on superstition?
|
|
|
|
