Real World Philospohy

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
I'm referring to extrapolations into the distant past. For those, the ones considered credible do pretty much correspond to the politicical winds

So what are the political winds behind evolution and the big bang? The example you cited seemed more anecdotal than anything else. The fact that a dictator was pushing a doctrine doesn't discredit science, it discredits the dictator.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Not exactly a straw man, as the clauses I didn't include weren't in the post I had been half-refering to when I listed the faith statement earlier:
...

Oh, you were just taking a jab at Fyron, refering to some long dead post that nobody remembered. Gotcha. Keep up the good work.

But with the qualifiaction in there, you agree with the statement, or no?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by spoon:
So what are the political winds behind evolution and the big bang? The example you cited seemed more anecdotal than anything else. The fact that a dictator was pushing a doctrine doesn't discredit science, it discredits the dictator.

That particular one is a relatively recent, specific case where actual documents fairly clearly lay out what happened. For other such cases, it isn't usually laid out in documents from the time, but it is possible to make reasonable inferences based on things they were immediately used to justify, that had been happening beforehand anyway. Whether or not those inferences are accurate is a different matter, but a correlation is there.

For example, racism was happening before evolution became popularized; once evolution became popularized, the racists then had a fairly straightforward justification: they aren't evolved as much as we are; they are naturally stupid. As such, they could be considered less than human; animals for test subjects:

copied from A web page (Am I legally allowed to do this? There doesn't appear to be any note on the site about it one way or the other....)
Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes:

"A death bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland, in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen".

Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894) published a museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as "Australian animals". It also gave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed "specimens". He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland law to stop slaughtering Aborigines was affecting his supply.

Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed and mounted. "Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens."

"A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas."

For more modern political reasons, consider what a lack of a Creator would mean:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it (GW mentioned something about that as well, as I recall). This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught (and the sad fact is, most don't unless they make a career out of it, and even then, it may well take thirty or forty years to catch up with them). Those running sleazy megacorps are free to make sleazy practices, as they won't really suffer for it any time soon and it helps them personally in the short run. Those in office can do the same. There's no real accountability. Strong incentive for anyone thirsting for power, and most of those in power anymore thirst for it to some degree.

The Big Bang is possibly a consequence of those in power needing lots of time for evolution, combined with the observation of a near universal redshift of distant stellar objects and Einstien's theory of relativity, which predicted that objects moving away from each other would cause a redshift. Putting those together, it becomes reasonably clear that the universe is expanding (unless another reason for the redshift is postulated, as some do). Well, if it is expanding, and it has been around long enough, then unless the expansion is a recent phenomina things must have come from a point. Getting out of that point required some driving force, and hence the Big Bang theory was born.

There's lots of problems with BB theory and evolutionary theory as a method of describing how we got where we are today, but those are usually either not brought up, quietly kept out of journals usually considered credible, dismissed as minor, or brushed off with "the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going" with the implication being that all will be answered if it is just given enough time.

Originally posted by spoon:

But with the qualifiaction in there, you agree with the statement, or no?

For the stuff that can be tested locally (chemistry, physics, electronics, et cetera), sure they do, as I've mentioned a number of times.

For stuff about the distant past, which by definition usually involves unrepeatable, happened once phenomina, they tend to argue details, mechanisms, order, specific path, and the like, but they don't dispute the basic thesises (that doesn't look right; what's the plural of thesis?); at least, not in the standard set of journals usually considered credible. Those that do don't usually get research grants or published in the journals usually considered credible.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it (GW mentioned something about that as well, as I recall). This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught (and the sad fact is, most don't unless they make a career out of it, and even then, it may well take thirty or forty years to catch up with them).

WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.

[deccan]

Hey, Jack Simth, I don't quite know what you're driving, because you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, but don't really dissent from the view that science, while not being perfect, is still by far the best method that we know of of obtaining knowledge about the universe.

I have no doubt that human nature being what it is, truths are being bent everyday in the name of science, and if all you're asking for is a general skepticism towards the most extreme, hard-to-prove claims in science, then I don't think anyone will object.

But the thing is that if you have a specific grievance or objection to what is considered accepted truth in science, and you believe that you can formulate a reasonable argument in its support, then you could always raise it in a venue more serious than a game forum, such as an academic institution or a scientific journal. And if they give you short shrift, then I'm sure plenty of mainstream news organizations would like to have your story.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by deccan:
I would also agree that anybody who reads Nietzsche for the purpose of formulating a rational argument against organized religion is looking in the wrong place. In fact, much of Nietzsche's work appears to disparage the rational, or Apollonian, approach to life in favor of the emotional, or Dionysian approach, though I would say that after his relationship with Wagner soured, Nietzsche started to shift in the opposite direction.

There's a lot of truth to this. Nietzsche would probably have disparaged the very idea of trying to formulate rational trends in his writings. But there are those who have followed him, in spirit if not exactly to the letter (Foucault comes to mind immediately), and I believe that the conclusions they draw from him are well-founded in his texts

Nietzsche's strength was never in appealing to the intellect but in appealing to intuitions and emotions. This is emphasized by his approach in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" which imitated the style and lyrical prose of the Bible for Nietzsche's anti-Christian agenda. Of course, the fact is that for many people, Christian parables and lessons appeal to the emotions and the intuitions as well, and being very aware of that, Nietzsche probably did it consciously.

Again, there's a lot of truth here. Nietzsche was not an idiot - far from it. But, speaking as a rationalist, that's exactly where his arguments fall to the ground. The anthropological proofs of his "slave-caste" origins of religion are - to put it charitably - thin.

So to sum up, I agree that Nietzsche would be an atrocious example of a detached starting point, but only the unintiated would even expect Nietzsche to be one.

Which is why I am very grateful to my teachers for not just telling me about Nietzsche - but actually having me read him for myself.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by DavidG:
WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.

In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite.

I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Sure standards of what is right or wrong vary sure, but my point is it IS possible to know what is right or wrong without religion. And it is not even hard to figure out why these things are wrong. Would I be pissed if John Doe stole my car? Yea. So would it be wrong for me to steal his? Yea.
The implication that all athiests don't know it is wrong to rape or murder and don't know why is just ridiculous.

[Andrés]

It's not intuition, it's judgemnent.
In some aspects it looks like religions say, don't think, this is what God commands, all you have to do is obey.

[Erax]

It is possible to develop morality without religion, but it is definitely harder. It is much easier to do it by instilling supernatural fear in people, but that does not mean that this is the only way.

The main incentive for behaving morally is that everyone profits from it. Supposing everyone in my immediate area began to behave morally tomorrow, there would be huge savings - less taxes, less insurance, no expense with private security services, and so on.

[Fyron]

Oh, you were just taking a jab at Fyron, refering to some long dead post that nobody remembered. Gotcha. Keep up the good work.

He was bound to do something like that sooner or later. Wildly misquoting an old argument out of context that has nothing to do with the current debate is certainly not good work.