Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 106 of 187 (631608)
09-01-2011 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
09-01-2011 12:35 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Modulous writes:
Most cultures have independently derived the Golden Rule, which is really just a rewording of 'empathy' - an innate behavioural trait we have.
Modulous writes:
We do follow the law of survival of the fittest, its a natural law and we cannot subvert it or choose to ignore it any more than we can the laws of motion.
However often, but not always, the Golden Rule if employed will require overcoming the law of survival of the fittest. I have no justification where my survival is concerned in sending money to poor countries of the third world. In fact I'd be better off if they would just disappear so that I might have unhindered use of their resources.
Modulous writes:
I should also point out that the evidence suggests this might the case. Simply examine the life expectancy in hunter gathererer societies where the closest thing you are imagining goes on. Where the thing most likely to kill you is another man. I'd suggest that cooperation is a better strategy than this, evolutionarily and as far as enjoyment of life is concerned.
That is only true where both cultures are militarily equal.
Modulous writes:
We must look to the way we interact with one another and try to structure those interactions so as to bring about the consequences we desire. This is the rational way of structuring morality, and even the religious do it. The differences usually spring up over differing desired consequences (and differences in estimating how to obtain certain consequences).
When there are no absolutes different cultures will establish different norms and if one of the cultures decide that kill thy neighbour is the norm then all of humanity will have to react to the reality that they have a neighbour who is keen to slaughter them.
Modulous writes:
I suggest in an Age of Reason we look principally at what we want, not what we believe some God wants on the word of some ancient priests. We should surely want for ourselves a world where there was maximum opportunity for human flourishment. Where we all feel safe and can strive for happiness etc. If a moral question arises, we should try to answer it so as to maximise those consequences, and we should try to encourage others to do likewise.
I'd suggest that there is only one circumstance where this would have any possibility of success. That circumstance would be the actual existence of a god(s) who has established a moral code that we at one level or another understand.
If we are all just a result of particles coming together from completely mindless non-intelligent sources then there is no reason to believe that any moral standard is better than another, and do you honestly believe that everyone is going to come to the same love thy neighbour as you love yourself conclusion. I wish I could conjure up that much faith.
Modulous writes:
I doubt many people would reason themselves into murdering the weak, but some may. In any natural population there will almost always be mixed strategies in play. In an age of reason we hopefully will recognize this and tailor our justice system appropriately.
Who sets the standard and how do you deal with those who disagree?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 09-01-2011 12:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 09-02-2011 2:31 AM GDR has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 107 of 187 (631619)
09-02-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by GDR
09-01-2011 11:27 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
However often, but not always, the Golden Rule if employed will require overcoming the law of survival of the fittest. I have no justification where my survival is concerned in sending money to poor countries of the third world.
As I explained, sometimes - as in our case - survival of the fittest doesn't mean surival of the selfish.
I should also point out that the evidence suggests this might the case. Simply examine the life expectancy in hunter gathererer societies where the closest thing you are imagining goes on. Where the thing most likely to kill you is another man. I'd suggest that cooperation is a better strategy than this, evolutionarily and as far as enjoyment of life is concerned.
That is only true where both cultures are militarily equal.
That will need more explanation than a single sentence.
When there are no absolutes different cultures will establish different norms and if one of the cultures decide that kill thy neighbour is the norm then all of humanity will have to react to the reality that they have a neighbour who is keen to slaughter them.
And that's the situation we actually have, isn't it?
I'd suggest that there is only one circumstance where this would have any possibility of success. That circumstance would be the actual existence of a god(s) who has established a moral code that we at one level or another understand.
Success at what? And what relevance does this have regarding an Age of Reason. Are you suggesting we have a way of knowing what this actual god's established morality is?
If we are all just a result of particles coming together from completely mindless non-intelligent sources then there is no reason to believe that any moral standard is better than another, and do you honestly believe that everyone is going to come to the same love thy neighbour as you love yourself conclusion. I wish I could conjure up that much faith.
But different moral systems will have different social consequences. We can rationally tailor our moral systems to be in line with our desired social consequences. We do it all the time.
And no, we don't expect that everyone will come to the same conclusions. And they don't.
Who sets the standard and how do you deal with those who disagree?
Society collectively sets the standards. Social consequences (ostracisation, prison etc) are how we deal with those that don't play by the rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by GDR, posted 09-01-2011 11:27 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 09-02-2011 2:45 PM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 108 of 187 (631701)
09-02-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
09-01-2011 1:43 PM


Science is Pseudoskeptical and Illogical
The problem with your whole "pseudoskepticism" thing is that by the terms of your own argument science itself is pseudoskeptical and logically invalid.
The validity of scientific investigation as a route to knowledge is based on taking the evidence we empirically perceive as being genuinely indicative of reality.
Which means the validity of scientific investigation as a route to knowledge is necessarily reliant on rejecting (albeit tentatively) untestable propositions which negate the worth of empirical evidence. Untestable propositions such as the 1 second universe (Message 379), Last Thursdayism, Descarte’s evil demon etc. etc. etc.
Which means that the entire basis of scientific investigation as a route to knowledge is, to cite your own flawed analogy, founded upon an "assumption" equivalent to Ben Franklin standing in a field without a method to test for electricity.
The entire validity of scientific investigation as a route to knowledge is based on rejecting untestable propositions in exactly the way you relentlessly insist is illogical and pseudoskeptical. Which means science itself is illogical and pseudoskeptical.
If this is not the case you should be able to answer the following without contradicting everything you have ever previously said on this matter.
Where do you place yourself on the scale of belief (below) with regard to the untestable notion that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created 1 second ago?
Dawkins Scale of Belief writes:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
For the record I am a 6 on the above scale with regard to the idea that all the scientific evidence thus far perceived is false. A score which makes me, and anyone else who considers scientific conclusions something other than opinions, a pseudoskeptic according to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2011 1:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2011 5:29 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 109 of 187 (631705)
09-02-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Modulous
09-02-2011 2:31 AM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Modulous writes:
As I explained, sometimes - as in our case - survival of the fittest doesn't mean surival of the selfish.
That's a given but it only takes one nation that wants to take over its neighbour to get the whole thing rolling. The next neighbour realizes it has to defend itself from this aggressive new neighbour they now have next door and it all escalates from there.
Modulous writes:
I should also point out that the evidence suggests this might the case. Simply examine the life expectancy in hunter gathererer societies where the closest thing you are imagining goes on. Where the thing most likely to kill you is another man. I'd suggest that cooperation is a better strategy than this, evolutionarily and as far as enjoyment of life is concerned.
GDR writes:
That is only true where both cultures are militarily equal.
Modulous writes:
That will need more explanation than a single sentence.
I think it is pretty obvious. There are two countries side by side that are militarily equal. The better strategy is co-operation. If however one is stronger than the other, the stronger is nation is no longer better off if they co-operate. They are better off if they conquer their neighbour and control the resources and the manpower of both countries.
GDR writes:
When there are no absolutes different cultures will establish different norms and if one of the cultures decide that kill thy neighbour is the norm then all of humanity will have to react to the reality that they have a neighbour who is keen to slaughter them.
Modulous writes:
And that's the situation we actually have, isn't it?
Yes it is. The thing is though that most of the world is theistic. Most of the world, even if it is just a vague notion, believes that there actually is purpose of some kind and they have at some level a sense that what they are doing can have consequences beyond their life time.
If the whole world was atheistic it means that we just exist without any over-arching purpose. It seems to me that we have instilled in all of us a sense that there is a broader meaning to everything than naked self-interest. This is the reason that I suggested that the only way that this "Age of Reason" could actually function is because there is a prime mover with a moral standard that has instilled in us at some level a moral code. Sure we all overcome that moral code on a daily basis but it is a matter of degree I suppose.
Modulous writes:
But different moral systems will have different social consequences. We can rationally tailor our moral systems to be in line with our desired social consequences. We do it all the time.
Sure but what happens when my neighbour's moral code interferes with mine, such as when my neighbour covets my resources and decides they should be his?
Modulous writes:
Society collectively sets the standards. Social consequences (ostracisation, prison etc) are how we deal with those that don't play by the rules.
Are you saying then that those who retain a faith and try to convince others that they have the truth should be ostracized or in prison?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 09-02-2011 2:31 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 09-02-2011 3:12 PM GDR has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 110 of 187 (631706)
09-02-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by GDR
09-02-2011 2:45 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
That's a given but it only takes one nation that wants to take over its neighbour to get the whole thing rolling. The next neighbour realizes it has to defend itself from this aggressive new neighbour they now have next door and it all escalates from there.
So, what's new?
I think it is pretty obvious. There are two countries side by side that are militarily equal. The better strategy is co-operation. If however one is stronger than the other, the stronger is nation is no longer better off if they co-operate. They are better off if they conquer their neighbour and control the resources and the manpower of both countries.
Are they strictly better off conquering their neighbour? I don't see why that must be the case. In any case, this is not relevant to individual morality, which is what we were talking about.
Yes it is. The thing is though that most of the world is theistic.
Indeed. And yet the consequences of an atheistic world where we screw each other over and go to war with our neighbours is actually real. So I'm struggling to see what rational benefit (for our age of reason) supposing that there is an actual god with some actual absolute moral laws as you describe here:
If the whole world was atheistic it means that we just exist without any over-arching purpose. It seems to me that we have instilled in all of us a sense that there is a broader meaning to everything than naked self-interest. This is the reason that I suggested that the only way that this "Age of Reason" could actually function is because there is a prime mover with a moral standard that has instilled in us at some level a moral code. Sure we all overcome that moral code on a daily basis but it is a matter of degree I suppose.
Sure but what happens when my neighbour's moral code interferes with mine, such as when my neighbour covets my resources and decides they should be his?
If he is your actual neighbour, you could decide to settle the matter in court. Or you could fight it out. If you are a nation, then the answer is diplomacy or war.
If you both believed in God or some prime moral mover, but believed that God wanted different things (for instance your neighbour claims that God has bestowed your VW on him) - how do you propose we settle that dispute?
Are you saying then that those who retain a faith and try to convince others that they have the truth should be ostracized or in prison?
No, what makes you say that? That would only be the case if in the Age of Reason it was a crime to have faith, which I don't think anyone is proposing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 09-02-2011 2:45 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by GDR, posted 09-02-2011 4:15 PM Modulous has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 111 of 187 (631716)
09-02-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Modulous
09-02-2011 3:12 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Modulous writes:
So, what's new?
But I thought that the point of is that the Age of Reason was supposed to make things so much better, but now it seems like you're agreeing that it won't be any better.
Modulous writes:
Are they strictly better off conquering their neighbour? I don't see why that must be the case. In any case, this is not relevant to individual morality, which is what we were talking about.
Sure, but doesn't a collective individual morality form the basis for a national morality?
Modulous writes:
If he is your actual neighbour, you could decide to settle the matter in court. Or you could fight it out. If you are a nation, then the answer is diplomacy or war.
If you both believed in God or some prime moral mover, but believed that God wanted different things (for instance your neighbour claims that God has bestowed your VW on him) - how do you propose we settle that dispute?
Again, I thought that this Age of Reason was going to bring about a better world. Frankly it is my belief that our problems are due to greed and a prideful desire for power. I just don't see where this Age of Reason will make things better, and as a matter of fact I contend that it would make things worse. Wasn't the USSR built on something like this?
If you look at how mankind has evolved over the years, I suggest that things do keep improving. I contend that it is due to the fact that overtime God continues to work with us, so that we are gradually coming closer to the people that He wants us to be. It could also be argued of course that this is happening because of greater socialization, cultural memes or whatever you want to call it.
The fact remains though that I do think that globally we are slowly becoming a more loving and caring species. Maybe we might consider that the model isn't broken, and that maybe we don't just evolve physically but maybe spiritually as well.
Modulous writes:
No, what makes you say that? That would only be the case if in the Age of Reason it was a crime to have faith, which I don't think anyone is proposing.
Straggler asked this in the OP.
quote:
It seems to be the expectation (or at least hope) of the new atheists that an age of reason be ushered into existence. An age in which religious and other superstitious beliefs are sidelined into irrelevance by a near universal acceptance that rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry hold the key to human advancement and progress.
What happens when these beliefs aren't sidelined and there is a theistc movement that threatens to derail the whole Age of Reason and is thus deemed to be a threat to all mankind?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 09-02-2011 3:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 09-02-2011 8:19 PM GDR has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 112 of 187 (631754)
09-02-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by GDR
09-02-2011 4:15 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
But I thought that the point of is that the Age of Reason was supposed to make things so much better, but now it seems like you're agreeing that it won't be any better.
In the fabled age of reason we all more or less reason that cooperation is on the whole better. I'm not suggesting this is likely...it would require equitable distribution of resources and other levels of discipline the human race has not demonstrated it possesses.
Sure, but doesn't a collective individual morality form the basis for a national morality?
But morality of politics is a different kettle of fish than the morality of individuals.
If you like - I can account for the morality of individuals in an age of reason and we'll let national morality take care of itself.
Again, I thought that this Age of Reason was going to bring about a better world.
It is a better world, not a perfect one. For instance, in a global age of reason there'd be no reason to mutilate girls genitals. This seems like a better world already.
In our fabled Age of Reason, the participants would choose diplomacy over war for as long as reasonable.
I just don't see where this Age of Reason will make things better, and as a matter of fact I contend that it would make things worse. Wasn't the USSR built on something like this?
How is it worse that we try to settle things diplomatically while rationally accepting the possibility that war might break out given our species track record, and thus doing everything possible to prevent that from occurring?
If you look at how mankind has evolved over the years, I suggest that things do keep improving.
We are becoming more cooperative and less violent over time. The evidence is becoming clear that cooperation creates more happiness and wealth than constant war. We are also becoming more secular over time. Perhaps there is some correlation...
What happens when these beliefs aren't sidelined and there is a theistc movement that threatens to derail the whole Age of Reason and is thus deemed to be a threat to all mankind?
We deal with it rationally, with words. In the age of reason I see no reason why there should not be freedom to believe what you want. It is your actions that will be judged by the community, and if your beliefs lead to criminal acts, then you get punished.
But I see no reason to criminalise a theistic movement.
In your scenario, we have not yet reached the Age of Reason which is defined as a time when such theistic movements have been entirely sidelined.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by GDR, posted 09-02-2011 4:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 09-02-2011 11:47 PM Modulous has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 113 of 187 (631769)
09-02-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Modulous
09-02-2011 8:19 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Modulous writes:
In the fabled age of reason we all more or less reason that cooperation is on the whole better. I'm not suggesting this is likely...it would require equitable distribution of resources and other levels of discipline the human race has not demonstrated it possesses.
Absolutely, but I can't see us getting to that point unless there actually exists a moral code that is absolute. If we are just intelligent creatures that have evolved from material non-intelligent origins, I don't see how an absolute truth about morality can exist.
If we are to have an actual Age of Reason I think we have to consider things that go beyond what we can know scientifically.
Modulous writes:
But morality of politics is a different kettle of fish than the morality of individuals.
If you like - I can account for the morality of individuals in an age of reason and we'll let national morality take care of itself.
The national morality will then in all likelihood reflect the morality of those in power. I just can't see this working that well.
Modulous writes:
It is a better world, not a perfect one. For instance, in a global age of reason there'd be no reason to mutilate girls genitals. This seems like a better world already.
It is JMHO but I suggest that genital mutilation is rare because of the impact of religion over the centuries. I'm just wondering how without any absolute moral code you could be sure that wouldn't happen. What is to prevent a society from deciding that is what should be done?
Modulous writes:
In our fabled Age of Reason, the participants would choose diplomacy over war for as long as reasonable.
I think the key word there is fabled.
Modulous writes:
How is it worse that we try to settle things diplomatically while rationally accepting the possibility that war might break out given our species track record, and thus doing everything possible to prevent that from occurring?
How much diplomatic pressure is there for the nation with all the weaponry? Right now there is a check on what happens because people do believe that some things are absolutely immoral.
Modulous writes:
We are becoming more cooperative and less violent over time. The evidence is becoming clear that cooperation creates more happiness and wealth than constant war. We are also becoming more secular over time. Perhaps there is some correlation...
I'm not sure we are becoming more secular. My country is considered secular but at the same time there is a strong belief in looking after those that can't help themselves. I don't believe that love and compassion just evolved from a non-intelligent non-compassionate source. I believe that the compassion in the heart of an atheist comes from God, as expressed in our two countries in our Judeo-Christian roots, no matter what he/she believes about God.
Modulous writes:
We deal with it rationally, with words. In the age of reason I see no reason why there should not be freedom to believe what you want. It is your actions that will be judged by the community, and if your beliefs lead to criminal acts, then you get punished.
But I see no reason to criminalise a theistic movement.
I don't see any reason either but I'm afraid I don't have confidence that is how it would go.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 09-02-2011 8:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 09-03-2011 2:32 AM GDR has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 114 of 187 (631775)
09-03-2011 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
09-02-2011 11:47 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Absolutely, but I can't see us getting to that point unless there actually exists a moral code that is absolute.
Or a cooperative moral code that is empirically superior at providing us with wanted consequences. Why can't that suffice?
The national morality will then in all likelihood reflect the morality of those in power. I just can't see this working that well.
As it does now. And it probably won't. That's the problem with nations. But while there are still plenty of things to disagree and politic about in an Age of Reason - there are certain things that would be a thing of the past. No need to argue about whether this land was given to a certain group by God. No need to argue about the soul-imbued rights of a blastocyst. No denying contraception on the basis of interpretation of ancient texts.
Laws based on what we know, rather than on what some people claim to believe, seems like a better system to me.
It is JMHO but I suggest that genital mutilation is rare because of the impact of religion over the centuries. I'm just wondering how without any absolute moral code you could be sure that wouldn't happen. What is to prevent a society from deciding that is what should be done?
If you can explain the rational reason to mutilate the genitals I'd be interested in hearing it. It isn't rare because of the impact of religion, it is shockingly common because of the influence of religion.
I think the key word there is fabled.
Yes, which is how I was using the word 'legendary' too. I'm on Straggler's side with this one - I don't think humanity is likely to succeed in bringing about this age of reason in the near future.
How much diplomatic pressure is there for the nation with all the weaponry? Right now there is a check on what happens because people do believe that some things are absolutely immoral.
I don't think the perception of an absolute morality is what keeps us at peace. After all, we went to war when the nations adamantly and publically held there was an absolute morality (because there was disagreement over what that absolute morality was, which is the problem with basing your views of absolute morality on the unknowable desires of an intangible prime moral mover).
I'm not sure we are becoming more secular. My country is considered secular but at the same time there is a strong belief in looking after those that can't help themselves.
Compare makind in 2000 to mankind in 1900, then compare that with 1800 and then to 1700. Are you sure we're not more secular?
And since when was a strong belief in looking after those that cannot help themselves incompatible with secularism?
I don't see any reason either but I'm afraid I don't have confidence that is how it would go.
I wouldn't regard the criminilastion of belief to be consistent with an Age of Reason. Freedom of expression, belief and thought I would have thought would be cornerstones of any rational system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 09-02-2011 11:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 3:13 PM Modulous has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 115 of 187 (631834)
09-03-2011 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Blue Jay
08-24-2011 6:24 PM


Topic Synopsis I
Straggler writes:
It seems to be the expectation (or at least hope) of the new atheists that an age of reason be ushered into existence. An age in which religious and other superstitious beliefs are sidelined into irrelevance by a near universal acceptance that rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry hold the key to human advancement and progress.
I don't see why the issue has to be so black and white. Logic, reason, and reality are quite helpful for human advancement and progress. That being said, I'm not quite sure how my individual and personal beliefs stifle progress...at least on an individual level.
Coyote writes:
Religion and the belief in an afterlife seems immune from "rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry."
Shamans (of all kinds) are selling immortality -- and who doesn't want that! -- but they are doing so with no evidence, just vast promises of future benefits that would make used car salesmen and politicians choke.
So no, I see no age of reason on the horizon.
How does having part of the population embracing illogical beliefs threaten an age of reason? Why must human beliefs or world views be entirely logical?
Frako writes:
I think we are on our first steps on the path to an age of reason...And with a bit of luck reason will have an easier road to their children's minds and blind faith will become a thing of the past.
Education is still the best cure for religion and education is on the rise children learn more and more with each generation...
A bit of luck? What logic have you been smoking? Perhaps the whole appeal of blind faith is that it is blind. Kinda like a roll of the dice. Kinda like luck?
Straggler writes:
the natural inclination of humans to endow themselves a special place in reality and to embrace personally appealing unevidenced nonsense through self-justifying interpretations of evidence is just too innate for a true "age of reason to emerge".
And if so, I'm all for it. The very idea that humans are no more special in the grand scheme of things than is pond scum is, for me, very unsettling.
Taq writes:
For some, reality just isn't acceptable. They need hope for a better place, better than the reality that they live in.
Bingo!
Taq writes:
Perhaps you enjoy the roller coaster a bit more if you know that you will never get another ride?
Life is not just about thrills and good times, though. People die every day. People get sick. Loved ones are vulnerable. Perhaps I would enjoy the roller coaster more if I knew who the operator was. A life with no guarantees is just too frightening for me to accept. I can still be a believer and yet live for the moment. I'm not waiting on God to rescue me, but I sure would like to know that He is in charge.
AZPaul3 writes:
...we will not see nor should we expect to see a wholesale abandonment of the old superstitions in our societies. While the movement toward secular rationality and reason in the greater world society may never become a 100% success the movement is now underway and making significant progress today.
I see no problem with superstition, especially if I can hope that it is supernaturally real. Is it counterproductive for me to believe and hope that an intelligence far superior to humans is in control of destiny and of a universal grand plan? It just seems like a job that humans are ill equipped to handle.
Straggler,responding to Jon writes:
Can you explain why you think it is stupid to counter criticize and expose religion to rational argument?
Rational arguments are useful if the participants respect the rights of the opponent to differ in belief and philosophy.
Straggler writes:
The more I think about this stuff the more convinced I am that we need to understand that humans are innately irrational and that irrational beliefs, religious or otherwise, are here to stay.
This doesn't make them any more sensible. It just means that humans are going to believe lots of things that aren't correct and act in ways that don't really make any sense.
Do we humans know what is correct? What does it mean to think correctly?
hooah writes:
In my personal opinion, I don't think there would be the strong vocal atheist movement that you see if it weren't for religionists shoving their faith and belief into places where it affects people who don't hold the same faith or belief. Politics and the science classroom come to mind immediately. If they could keep their silly beliefs to themselves and to people who share the same beliefs, there wouldn't be a problem.
When someone calls my beliefs silly, I get this urge to oppose them. Nobody likes to be called names. My beliefs are logical to me though I admit that I need them to be favorable in the long run.
AZPaul3 writes:
If Christianity does not want to be sidelined into a painful memory for the future to ignore then the doctrine that all others are evil instruments of Satan has to be abandoned and replaced with the doctrine that all people are not just free but bound to follow their own conscience.
I agree that Christianity needs to change and embrace the belief of personal responsibility. I agree with jar in that we will be judged on what we do versus what we could have done. Of course, everyone will fail!
Straggler writes:
The universe could be theistically created but in such a way that only the abandonment of reason can lead to that conclusion.
Wouldn't that be a neat trick?
Bluejay writes:
The methodologies espoused by religious philosophies are notoriously arcane and unreliable. An Age of Reason cannot develop under incoherent and inconsistent systems of reasoning. Therefore, even if there is a God, an Age of Reason, by its very nature, will entail a large-scale abandonment of religious philosophies.
It will not necessarily entail a total rejection of God, but, since the God conclusion is usually inseparable from religious philosophies, it very well might.
And IF God exists, it wouldn't matter one whit to Her if nobody believed. In fact, She expected it! (just sayin)
GDR writes:
I'm just saying that man, unless there is mental illness, has instilled in him a knowledge of good and evil. Put another way I contend that man has instilled in him the ability to live by loving selfishly or to live by loving unselfishly. I think that we are spring loaded to the former but we are able to override that and choose the latter, with all of us doing so imperfectly. It's all a matter of degree I suppose.
And also a matter of responsibility! we shouldn't blame a devil nor should we expect God to simply erase all of our mistakes.
Bluejay writes:
We don't call it an Age of Reason because we're getting the right answers to questions: we call it an Age of Reason because people are using functional reasoning, instead of arcane faith, to get answers.
Sure, accuracy will improve in an Age of Reason, no doubt. But, this is just a side effect of people turning to reason, instead of faith, to solve problems and answer questions, because reason is ultimately a superior method. So, while the accuracy will be there (in my opinion), it isn't the accuracy that defines the Age: it's the process of thinking that defines the Age.
Is it possible to have a rational thought process and still have an irrational faith? Or must our faith ultimately also be rational??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Blue Jay, posted 08-24-2011 6:24 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 09-03-2011 9:58 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2011 2:40 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 156 by Blue Jay, posted 09-08-2011 9:41 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 116 of 187 (631862)
09-03-2011 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by GDR
09-01-2011 11:07 PM


Re: Competing Methods of Knowing
On morality - Don't forget the human brain evolved not in an environment of globalisation and international politics but in an environment of small and relatively closely related hunter gatherer communities. So if you think our sense of morality doesn't make a lot of sense as something that would evolve from the modern world you are probably right!!!! But that's because it didn't. Having said that you seem to be grossly underestimating the ability of "selfish" genes to lead to highly co-operative, altruistic and unselfish individuals.
On God - No matter how eloquently you (or Robert Wright) argue the case the facts here are simple. Humans can and do invent gods. Humans can and do invent false positive intelligent agency in a variety of other forms too. We KNOW that humans can and do invent such things. So human invention theory is based on the undeniable and observable fact that humans can and will do this.
Meanwhile even the claim that god(s) can exist, never mind the notion that they actually do, is entirely subjective. In terms of objective evidence alone why is the actual existence of god(s) even considered a possibility?
Wright writes:
It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the "illusion" in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusory.
God has certainly evolved. And if you listen to Wright or yourself on this subject you would think that the notion of God has evolved as more and more reliable (i.e. objective) positive evidence has been found regarding the true nature of God. But this just isn't the case is it? God has evolved to become increasingly ambiguous and increasingly undefined as our understanding of the world has pushed the concept of God into ever smaller gaps in our knowledge. The modern concept of god is a result of retreat in the face of knowledge. Not advancement!! That is not a credible basis for knowledge.
The only way to conclude that all the false positive agency humans are prone to is indicative of god is to start with the assumption that god exists and then interpret the evidence in that light. This is circular.
And let's not forget this false positive agency doesn't just apply to gods. For comparison - If we follow Wright's logic then the existence of so many conspiracy theories regarding some powerful group (aliens, Rothschilds, the Illuminati etc. etc.) puppeteering the world indicates the actual existence of some less defined and more plausible group manipulating the whole world to their dastardly ends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by GDR, posted 09-01-2011 11:07 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 6:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 117 of 187 (631865)
09-03-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Phat
09-03-2011 1:52 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis I
Phat writes:
I don't see why the issue has to be so black and white. Logic, reason, and reality are quite helpful for human advancement and progress. That being said, I'm not quite sure how my individual and personal beliefs stifle progress...at least on an individual level.
I think AZPaul got this one right.
An age of reason isn't about imposing on people what they can or cannot personally believe. That would be ridiculously unreasonable and almost certainly fail anyway.
An Age of Reason is about eliminating irrational methods of knowing from our institutions and their policies. Things like abortion laws being based on empirical evidence rather than on the notion of a soul. That sort of thing (lets not take this thread down the abortion route however!! - that was just an example off the top of my head)
Straggler writes:
The universe could be theistically created but in such a way that only the abandonment of reason can lead to that conclusion.
Phat writes:
Wouldn't that be a neat trick?
As far as I can tell many who advocate a "blessed are those who believe but do not see" sort of mentality to faith are suggesting exactly this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 09-03-2011 1:52 PM Phat has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 118 of 187 (631924)
09-04-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Phat
09-03-2011 1:52 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis I
Is it counterproductive for me to believe and hope that an intelligence far superior to humans is in control of destiny and of a universal grand plan?
Most certainly. Individual superstition leads to organized superstition and organized superstition leads to illogical, irrational and down right evil policy in our emerging global village.
Let's take one of the most glaring examples of superstitious evil playing out now in our world today: the African HIV/AIDS crisis.
Due to some superstitious faith that contraception is against the will of their god the church opposes the use of condoms. As a consequence, literally millions of people needlessly expose themselves to HIV infection. Thousands of people die every day from AIDS that could have been prevented. The empirical evidence is very strong. The spread of HIV could be greatly curtailed by the use of simple, cheap, readily available latex tubes.
But instead of looking at the facts to make a better life for the people the organized superstition that is the church bowed to its irrational, illogical faith. The result, of course, is that every year more than a million people end their suffering-shortened lives in a months-long painful death. The church not only helped establish but continues to maintain a hell on earth. All for the sake of its superstition.
This is the evil of superstition forsaking reason that is being writ large on all humanity.
The reason this happened so strikingly in Africa is because the superstitious church holds great power on the continent. This is the power, this is the abuse of power by the church, that humanity in an Age of Reason needs to destroy.
I see no problem with superstition ...
Then you are not looking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 09-03-2011 1:52 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 119 of 187 (631926)
09-04-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Modulous
09-03-2011 2:32 AM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Modulous writes:
Or a cooperative moral code that is empirically superior at providing us with wanted consequences. Why can't that suffice?
Co-operation will sometimes bring about a mtually beneficial outcome. However, when it is zero-sum as Wright talks about then there is a winner and a loser and if there is no absolute moral code then it will inevitably boil down to "might is right".
Modulous writes:
As it does now. And it probably won't. That's the problem with nations. But while there are still plenty of things to disagree and politic about in an Age of Reason - there are certain things that would be a thing of the past. No need to argue about whether this land was given to a certain group by God. No need to argue about the soul-imbued rights of a blastocyst. No denying contraception on the basis of interpretation of ancient texts.
Laws based on what we know, rather than on what some people claim to believe, seems like a better system to me.
Like you say, that is what is happening now with all of the religious beliefs that we have. Sure some believe the things you are talking about but it isn't really having an impact. Why will the eradication of faiths change that? People will always find ways of banding together for some cause that puts them at odds with some other tribe.
Modulous writes:
If you can explain the rational reason to mutilate the genitals I'd be interested in hearing it. It isn't rare because of the impact of religion, it is shockingly common because of the influence of religion.
It isn't done because of religion. Religion can be used in the hope of justifying it, but the actual cause is to manipulate and control women. (Forced fidelity of you like.)
Modulous writes:
I don't think the perception of an absolute morality is what keeps us at peace. After all, we went to war when the nations adamantly and publically held there was an absolute morality (because there was disagreement over what that absolute morality was, which is the problem with basing your views of absolute morality on the unknowable desires of an intangible prime moral mover).
I don't think that the general desires of a prime moral mover are unknowable, but I agree that in many specific situations it is ambiguous as to how to apply that code.
Modulous writes:
Compare makind in 2000 to mankind in 1900, then compare that with 1800 and then to 1700. Are you sure we're not more secular?
Governments are more secular but in terms of being more distant from the church, at least in western cultures. IMHO that is a good thing.
My point was that I believe that there is instilled in all mankind an under-girding of the concept that we are to love our neighbour. My perception is that we have taken that on board more than our fore-fathers did. If I am correct and and there is an absolute moral code then we are becoming less secular.
Modulous writes:
And since when was a strong belief in looking after those that cannot help themselves incompatible with secularism?
Absolutely not, but I contend that the reason for that is there is an absolute moral code that under-girds our societies.
Modulous writes:
I wouldn't regard the criminilastion of belief to be consistent with an Age of Reason. Freedom of expression, belief and thought I would have thought would be cornerstones of any rational system.
But the OP suggested a world where religious, (superstitious) beliefs no longer exist.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 09-03-2011 2:32 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2011 4:00 PM GDR has replied
 Message 121 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2011 4:20 PM GDR has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 120 of 187 (631929)
09-04-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by GDR
09-04-2011 3:13 PM


Re: morality in this legendary age of reason
Co-operation will sometimes bring about a mtually beneficial outcome. However, when it is zero-sum as Wright talks about then there is a winner and a loser and if there is no absolute moral code then it will inevitably boil down to "might is right".
This might occasionally be the case. But it happens now, with most people believing in absolute morality - so it's just a fact we are stuck with regardless of whether we are in an age of reason or not.
I contend we would be in a much better position to deal with these problematic facts if we study society and morals as evolved and imperfect traits rather than postulating some magic prime moral mover.
Like you say, that is what is happening now with all of the religious beliefs that we have. Sure some believe the things you are talking about but it isn't really having an impact. Why will the eradication of faiths change that?
The loss of religious faith will mean that kids don't die because parents pray for them thinking it is effective instead of taking them to a doctor. It means we can address abortion based on reason and evidence, not on the interpreted word of a bronze age tribal collective.
These are the areas where the age of reason will have an impact. There's plenty that won't change in the age of reason. We'll still be humans, after all.
It isn't done because of religion. Religion can be used in the hope of justifying it, but the actual cause is to manipulate and control women. (Forced fidelity of you like.)
Right, so if religion is sidelined, genital mutilation for control cannot be justified anymore.
I don't think that the general desires of a prime moral mover are unknowable, but I agree that in many specific situations it is ambiguous as to how to apply that code.
Then let me know how we might go about knowing the 'general desires of the prime moral mover'. What I've seen is just people claiming to know what the moral mover wants.
Governments are more secular but in terms of being more distant from the church, at least in western cultures. IMHO that is a good thing.
That's what secular means, isn't it? The great moral advances our world has seen seem to have occurred alongside increasing secularisation.
My point was that I believe that there is instilled in all mankind an under-girding of the concept that we are to love our neighbour.
That's my point too. The problem with introducing religion into the discussion is that religion shelters bad moral ideas with equal fervour and lack of evidence as the good moral ideas.
We don't need religion to have a moral society. We don't need a prime moral mover to explain how intrinsic moral instincts can exist. Denying a moral prime mover doesn't disqualify us from learning about and acting on our intrinsic moral instincts, and accepting that there is a moral prime mover doesn't help us learning about which of our moral instincts are 'instilled' and thus endorsed by a prime moral mover. Nor does postulating a prime moral mover help us deciding whether or not we should follow its preferred morality.
A prime moral mover is largely an irrelevant distraction that can lead to bad ideas being defended against all reason.
I wouldn't regard the criminilastion of belief to be consistent with an Age of Reason. Freedom of expression, belief and thought I would have thought would be cornerstones of any rational system.
But the OP suggested a world where religious, (superstitious) beliefs no longer exist.
Not a world where it was illegal to hold those beliefs. We live in a world where belief in Zeus doesn't for the most part, exist. It is not criminal to believe in Zeus, its just that the Greek pantheon has been largely sidelined. Imagine that for all religion. That's the world we are being asked to consider.
People still might believe some religious things, but they are limited to the moral sidelines, not centre stage.
There might be a prime moral mover. But we don't need to consult it in order to moral decisions, and indeed we generally don't. For the most part, with religion sidelined, we'll still have the same moral instincts, its just that the bad moral ideas that religion defends (sometimes with lethal zeal) will no longer be justifiable and will likewise get sidelined
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 3:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 8:01 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024