Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MadMordigan · 08-30-2002, 02:40 PM

While, as you imply, eugenics did involve murder, it also had a very strong selective breeding component. And while murder is far removed from selective breeding, there is a connecting philosophy that one person or group has a right to make decisions about the genetic future (or non-future) of another.

Every person has this right. And it has been exercised since the very beginning of humanity. All that modern genetic science adds is a more efficient way to perform these decisions.

Mike · 09-02-2002, 07:55 AM

Dag,

I'm going by the New Testament's Definition of a Christian. That is, one who is adopted into the family of Christ. One who loves and prays for his enemy, turns the other cheek, serves others (including Jews) even if they are his enemy (the good Samaritan), goes the extra mile if compelled to go one mile, is commanded not only to refrain from killing, but to refrain from being angry, is commanded not only to refrain from adultry, but to refrain from lust, etc., etc., etc.

If you are going to attribute the holocaust to the Christians, then you're going to have to attribute the atrocities of the Soviet and Chinese dictatorships to atheism, and I know you don't want to go there. Besides, it is counter-productive to a rational examination of the implications of the opposing philosophies. Plus, I never said that Darwinism caused the holocaust, but that the holocaust had been attributed to Darwinism (and it has been, by Jewish leaders of the time among others--this is not my claim, but one that goes back to the eugenics debates)--and that was not the central point, nor did I claim that the assertion was objectively true.

Kind,

You said that those who don't turn to God for answers look for answers that haven't been "handed to us by authority." I'll argue that all things are handed to us by authority, unless we are raised in a vacuum. It is only the idea that something exists that has been handed to us by our predecessors that spurs us on to our own investigation. If we never took anything on authority, we would be nothing but jungle boys. From the ABC's to calculus, we have to rely on someone else's authority before we can make it work for ourselves, and make additional discoveries of our own. The difference is not the reliance on authority, the difference is which authority one is relying upon. Believers build on the authority of the prophets. Humanists build on the authority of earlier scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, etc. You've gotta start somewhere. And no matter which camp you belong to there is always the possibility for doubt, until you have personally verified the claims of the authorities on which you rely. Each generation stands on the shoulders of previous generations, the natural sciences would be among the first to acknowledge this (otherwise, why cite references?). Reliance on authority isn't the fundamental difference. The difference is whether that authority is mortal or immortal.

I put the european existentialists in the second camp, because they did not necessarily believe that we could find the answers--on our own or otherwise. But, you are right, they were atheists and didn't abandon the search for answers because of the difficulty of the search, but because of the apparent impossibility of it. But unlike the humanists and the christians, they did propose that we abandon the search. The fundamental issues were for them the possibilities of a meaningless existence, permanent isolation, and death (the atheistic concept of death, or ceasing to exist altogether). Which really are just three aspects of atheistic death. They believed that any attempt to ignore or deny these issues was a lie, and a sign of weakness or ill mental health. Not believing in God, but still believing in complete surrender to a higher power. Their higher power was not God, but was the cold realities of the universe. Humanists don't go so far. They still hope for some kind of meaning, some kind of connection, and even some kind of immortality (even if it is symbolic). But you are way ahead of me. I thought it might take some time for you to see that they belonged in the first camp. Yes, existentialists are really just honest humanists. And the philosophy of humanism if examined for what it truly implies, will inevitably lead to existentialism. Boy, you are quick. I thought this would take longer. Existentialism IS the implication of humanism. Humanists are simply insecure existentialists.

So that simplifies things, we now only need to examine the implications of existentialism vs. theism. And I've already outlined the implications of existentialism (which the old school existentialists so boldly proclaimed).

You also said this: "Also, it occurs to me that the claim 'we don't know enough on our own and there are some problems for which we can never find adequate solutions on our own' must itself be a member of the very same class of supposedly intractible problems it asserts we can never solve. That makes it self-refuting."

This may be true if humans were the only source of knowledge, or in otherwords if there was no God. The only way we can know for sure that there are problems we can't solve on our own is if some more intelligent being (who does have the answers) reveals this fact. So, if what you say is correct, the only way this philosophy is NOT self-refuting is if there IS a God. Unfortunately, the european existentialists also relied on the argument that there were some unsolvable problems, and thus (as you say) their claims were self-refuting, since they denied the existence of God. In other words, the existentialist argument relies on the existence of God. Do you still want to keep them in the same camp as the humanists?

Mad,

Perhaps you are right about the history of selective breeding, but that doesn't change the implication that we either turn to God and ask for help (because these kinds of decisions imply too much responsibility for mere mortals), or we set ourselves up as "gods" and accept full responsibility for whatever carnage may result. I suppose this choice has always existed, science has just made it more explicit. I don't believe there will be fence sitters for much longer....

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]

Daggah · 09-02-2002, 09:37 AM

Quote:

If you are going to attribute the holocaust to the Christians, then you're going to have to attribute the atrocities of the Soviet and Chinese dictatorships to atheism, and I know you don't want to go there. Besides, it is counter-productive to a rational examination of the implications of the opposing philosophies.

Except you can't - atheism by itself isn't a belief system or worldview. The atrocities of the Soviet and Chinese dictatorships are attributable to a communist worldview - a worldview that just happens to be an atheist one. Other atheist worldviews - secular humanist, buddhist, objectivist, etc. - have nothing to do with communism.

However, the Christian worldview was able to be manipulated into supporting the holocaust by the millions of Christians in Nazi Germany and a leader who used Christian rhetoric - even if he wasn't Christian himself - to sway them.

Oh, and what denominations use your definition of Christian as "THE" definition, I wonder...?

Mike · 09-03-2002, 07:38 AM

Doesn't matter which denominations use it. I'm advocating an examination of the fundamental philosophies of both theism, and atheism. Thus, which denominations advocate the biblical view is no more relevant than which governments advocate the atheistic view.

Oh, and Kind Bud, I've been thinking more about your post, and I've decided that you are a freaking genius. You've just given me a wonderful argument against atheism. Since atheism holds that it is impossible to find evidence for God's existence, by your same reasoning, the fundamental argument of atheism is self-refuting. The idea that it is impossible to find evidence for God's existence is dependent on the assertion that there are some things that can never be proven. Which is, of course, a statement that can never be proven...and thus it is self-refuting (as you say), unless God told you that there were some things that could never be proven by mere mortals....

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]

phlebas · 09-03-2002, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
Since atheism holds that it is impossible to find evidence for God's existence, by your same reasoning, the fundamental argument of atheism is self-refuting. The idea that it is impossible to find evidence for God's existence is dependent on the assertion that there are some things that can never be proven. Which is, of course, a statement that can never be proven...and thus it is self-refuting (as you say), unless God told you that there were some things that could never be proven by mere mortals....

Yes, you are certainly going to be putting atheists the world over on their butts with that shocking logic

BTW, the "fundamental argument of atheism" is that there is no reason to believe in any gods. All that other stuff is semantic pud-pounding.

Goliath · 09-03-2002, 10:03 AM

Mike

Quote:

atheism holds that it is impossible to find evidence for God's existence

It does not. I am an atheist, and never have I made such a claim. You are therefore demonstrably wrong.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Mike · 09-03-2002, 10:51 AM

OK, OK, simmer down now... I was just poking a little fun at Kind Bud. It's not like several of you haven't inaccurately told me what I'm supposed to believe as a theist.

So its not impossible to find evidence for God, you just don't believe it has been done yet? But you choose to disbelieve in God rather than withhold judgement, is that closer?

Still, this has little bearing on the relative implications of atheism and theism. For atheists our authorities are restricted to the mortal. For theists our authorities theoretically include both the mortal and the immortal. Materialism and/or the scientific method are not at issue as neither are exclusive to one or the other philosophy. Do you agree?

Oh, wait, matter and energy are immortal. So both theism and atheism appeal to both the mortal and immortal as sources of information. What then is the difference? The belief in an afterlife? Come on, throw me a bone...

phlebas · 09-03-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
Oh, wait, matter and energy are immortal. So both theism and atheism appeal to both the mortal and immortal as sources of information.

*snort*

Mike · 09-03-2002, 12:15 PM

I know, I know. Still waiting, though. I'm really having trouble figuring out what the fighting is all about. Is it the appeal to mere mortals vs. immortals, or is it the possibility of an infinite existence that constitutes the greatest wedge between the camps?

It seems that the implications of either one have mostly to do with agency and accountability, though I'm not yet making assumptions about what those implications would be for each philosophy.

For example the implication about who our authorities (mortal vs. immortal) are really comes down to choice and accountability doesn't it? And the implications about an afterlife, don't they come down to choice and accountability too?

...crickets...

phlebas · 09-03-2002, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
I know, I know. Still waiting, though. I'm really having trouble figuring out what the fighting is all about. Is it the appeal to mere mortals vs. immortals, or is it the possibility of an infinite existence that constitutes the greatest wedge between the camps?

No, it's the lack of evidence of any immortals. (Matter and energy are not "immortal" in any normal use of the word, either.)

The wedge is that you believe in a god and I don't. This wedge isn't a problem until you or others like you try to dump your beliefs into our schools, our constitutions, or in our lives some other way.

Quote:

It seems that the implications of either one have mostly to do with agency and accountability, though I'm not yet making assumptions about what those implications would be for each philosophy.

I think you're making the difference needlessly complicated.

Quote:

For example the implication about who our authorities (mortal vs. immortal) are really comes down to choice and accountability doesn't it?

Not in my opinion. I don't believe I have an authority outside of my own sense of morals.

Quote:

And the implications about an afterlife, don't they come down to choice and accountability too?

They don't have to. And they wouldn't if Christians wouldn't try to coerce certain behavior.

What do you think are the implications of an afterlife? And why should we assume that there is one?

Quote:

...crickets...

Oh cool. Jeopardy. Ummm... "What is the sound of a Christian giving his objective proof of God?"

09-02-2002, 07:55 AM	#62
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	Dag, I'm going by the New Testament's Definition of a Christian. That is, one who is adopted into the family of Christ. One who loves and prays for his enemy, turns the other cheek, serves others (including Jews) even if they are his enemy (the good Samaritan), goes the extra mile if compelled to go one mile, is commanded not only to refrain from killing, but to refrain from being angry, is commanded not only to refrain from adultry, but to refrain from lust, etc., etc., etc. If you are going to attribute the holocaust to the Christians, then you're going to have to attribute the atrocities of the Soviet and Chinese dictatorships to atheism, and I know you don't want to go there. Besides, it is counter-productive to a rational examination of the implications of the opposing philosophies. Plus, I never said that Darwinism caused the holocaust, but that the holocaust had been attributed to Darwinism (and it has been, by Jewish leaders of the time among others--this is not my claim, but one that goes back to the eugenics debates)--and that was not the central point, nor did I claim that the assertion was objectively true. Kind, You said that those who don't turn to God for answers look for answers that haven't been "handed to us by authority." I'll argue that all things are handed to us by authority, unless we are raised in a vacuum. It is only the idea that something exists that has been handed to us by our predecessors that spurs us on to our own investigation. If we never took anything on authority, we would be nothing but jungle boys. From the ABC's to calculus, we have to rely on someone else's authority before we can make it work for ourselves, and make additional discoveries of our own. The difference is not the reliance on authority, the difference is which authority one is relying upon. Believers build on the authority of the prophets. Humanists build on the authority of earlier scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, etc. You've gotta start somewhere. And no matter which camp you belong to there is always the possibility for doubt, until you have personally verified the claims of the authorities on which you rely. Each generation stands on the shoulders of previous generations, the natural sciences would be among the first to acknowledge this (otherwise, why cite references?). Reliance on authority isn't the fundamental difference. The difference is whether that authority is mortal or immortal. I put the european existentialists in the second camp, because they did not necessarily believe that we could find the answers--on our own or otherwise. But, you are right, they were atheists and didn't abandon the search for answers because of the difficulty of the search, but because of the apparent impossibility of it. But unlike the humanists and the christians, they did propose that we abandon the search. The fundamental issues were for them the possibilities of a meaningless existence, permanent isolation, and death (the atheistic concept of death, or ceasing to exist altogether). Which really are just three aspects of atheistic death. They believed that any attempt to ignore or deny these issues was a lie, and a sign of weakness or ill mental health. Not believing in God, but still believing in complete surrender to a higher power. Their higher power was not God, but was the cold realities of the universe. Humanists don't go so far. They still hope for some kind of meaning, some kind of connection, and even some kind of immortality (even if it is symbolic). But you are way ahead of me. I thought it might take some time for you to see that they belonged in the first camp. Yes, existentialists are really just honest humanists. And the philosophy of humanism if examined for what it truly implies, will inevitably lead to existentialism. Boy, you are quick. I thought this would take longer. Existentialism IS the implication of humanism. Humanists are simply insecure existentialists. So that simplifies things, we now only need to examine the implications of existentialism vs. theism. And I've already outlined the implications of existentialism (which the old school existentialists so boldly proclaimed). You also said this: "Also, it occurs to me that the claim 'we don't know enough on our own and there are some problems for which we can never find adequate solutions on our own' must itself be a member of the very same class of supposedly intractible problems it asserts we can never solve. That makes it self-refuting." This may be true if humans were the only source of knowledge, or in otherwords if there was no God. The only way we can know for sure that there are problems we can't solve on our own is if some more intelligent being (who does have the answers) reveals this fact. So, if what you say is correct, the only way this philosophy is NOT self-refuting is if there IS a God. Unfortunately, the european existentialists also relied on the argument that there were some unsolvable problems, and thus (as you say) their claims were self-refuting, since they denied the existence of God. In other words, the existentialist argument relies on the existence of God. Do you still want to keep them in the same camp as the humanists? Mad, Perhaps you are right about the history of selective breeding, but that doesn't change the implication that we either turn to God and ask for help (because these kinds of decisions imply too much responsibility for mere mortals), or we set ourselves up as "gods" and accept full responsibility for whatever carnage may result. I suppose this choice has always existed, science has just made it more explicit. I don't believe there will be fence sitters for much longer.... [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

09-03-2002, 07:38 AM	#64
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	Doesn't matter which denominations use it. I'm advocating an examination of the fundamental philosophies of both theism, and atheism. Thus, which denominations advocate the biblical view is no more relevant than which governments advocate the atheistic view. Oh, and Kind Bud, I've been thinking more about your post, and I've decided that you are a freaking genius. You've just given me a wonderful argument against atheism. Since atheism holds that it is impossible to find evidence for God's existence, by your same reasoning, the fundamental argument of atheism is self-refuting. The idea that it is impossible to find evidence for God's existence is dependent on the assertion that there are some things that can never be proven. Which is, of course, a statement that can never be proven...and thus it is self-refuting (as you say), unless God told you that there were some things that could never be proven by mere mortals.... [ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-30-2002, 02:40 PM	#61
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	While, as you imply, eugenics did involve murder, it also had a very strong selective breeding component. And while murder is far removed from selective breeding, there is a connecting philosophy that one person or group has a right to make decisions about the genetic future (or non-future) of another. Every person has this right. And it has been exercised since the very beginning of humanity. All that modern genetic science adds is a more efficient way to perform these decisions.

09-03-2002, 10:51 AM	#67
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	OK, OK, simmer down now... I was just poking a little fun at Kind Bud. It's not like several of you haven't inaccurately told me what I'm supposed to believe as a theist. So its not impossible to find evidence for God, you just don't believe it has been done yet? But you choose to disbelieve in God rather than withhold judgement, is that closer? Still, this has little bearing on the relative implications of atheism and theism. For atheists our authorities are restricted to the mortal. For theists our authorities theoretically include both the mortal and the immortal. Materialism and/or the scientific method are not at issue as neither are exclusive to one or the other philosophy. Do you agree? Oh, wait, matter and energy are immortal. So both theism and atheism appeal to both the mortal and immortal as sources of information. What then is the difference? The belief in an afterlife? Come on, throw me a bone...

09-03-2002, 12:15 PM	#69
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	I know, I know. Still waiting, though. I'm really having trouble figuring out what the fighting is all about. Is it the appeal to mere mortals vs. immortals, or is it the possibility of an infinite existence that constitutes the greatest wedge between the camps? It seems that the implications of either one have mostly to do with agency and accountability, though I'm not yet making assumptions about what those implications would be for each philosophy. For example the implication about who our authorities (mortal vs. immortal) are really comes down to choice and accountability doesn't it? And the implications about an afterlife, don't they come down to choice and accountability too? ...crickets...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.