Another fantastic video. Sub'd! Really glad I found your channel. Do you have an introductory video, i.e. summary of ideas or some info about yourself or your general position(s)?
@8bitnecromancer Lol I think Ben's channel should have a banner that says "It's like Azrienoch with a haircut". It wouldn't make sense now, but that adds to the hilarity I think.
@M0THERKN0WSBEST As an example, you could use science to justify (assert the "goodness" of) weeding out the gene-pool of genetic "defectives" through euthanasia or mandatory sterilization. But that, of course, would be wrong.
Christians ant talk about morals when the bible says adulterers should be stoned to death. Along with other sinners . Wake up, open your eyes. Religion is just a method of control.
@PiratGeneralen OK fine a should rephrases that. Science dosen't make any ethical or moral statement . For example the chemistry involve in making gun poweder for exmaple is unethical or imoral as such even though guns have killed alot of people
These concepts are "mind-blowing." What would happen if TheCarruths and/or Azrienoch had a debate with Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist: Addendum? Put that in your pipe, and smoke it!
You think exactly like I do, my friend. The answer to why it wouldn't happen is simple. If 10 people are in a room and there is one lightbulb and one socket in the ceiling and after a week the bulb isn't put in the socket, then the goal was never for the room to be with light. The goal was to see who would be the one to put the bulb in.
Q:How many microbiologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:Whatever you think the answer MAY be, change that lightbulb soon!
All parties claim to be informed and wise,and their level of debate are about equal.We ALL could benefit from such a debate.Besides,isn't that what PJ,Az, and Carr are all about?Sharing knowledge/ideas?
I understand that we all are the 10 people,the lightbulb is our ideas,the socket a radio show,ilumination our gains.
You're clearly intelligent enough to have considered the reasons for getting the metal "jewelry". What are they?
I ask because my reaction to such "expression" is to snicker. There is a greater corrolation of such facial ornateness with lower intelligence then with higher intelligence. Given your ability to articulate your thoughts puts you in the higher intelligence bracket and so there must be some really really really really good reason why you decided this was the look for you.
perhaps he has chosen to not conform with a close minded standard that "judges a book by it's cover". Perhaps also he has surrounded himself with other 'enlightened' people who choose to not judge him on his appearance. Furthermore is the possibility that in his circle of 'enlightened' associates "facial ornateness" is actually paired with intelligence. At last check, piercing your epidermis does not damage your brain function or lower your intelligence quotient. Just a thought.
You should join the "let's smear sh1t on our faces and not conform to close minded standards" group. Last time I heard smearing sh1t on your face does not damage your brain function or lower your intelligence either. Just a thought.
Though Im not much into 'shit-on-face', and though I do not have any piercings, your offer is actually viable, and you assessment correct. As much as it might offend your sensibilities, the only barometer of intelligence here is your weak responses.
Look, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it seems possible to me that neither do you, so I'll let you off. You and your friend Azrienoch are certainly confused at what you read in "The God Delusion." Dawkins doesn't mean to assert that Biology should dictate our valuations of ethics. He is a man, who is also a science, who does two things in his book: he demonstrates, historically and rationally, the danger of these religions, and he answers the arguments from Creationism against science.
There is at least as much reason to believe that atheism is as or more dangerous. In an atheistic worldview there is no absolute morality, and historically speaking, atheist leaders have committed genocide and murder on an unfathomable scale.
There is no rational argument by which atheism can be demonstrated as dangerous but to go in-depth I'd need there not to be a limit to what I can say, and that's perfectly true that atheist leaders have commited murder. People of all races, creeds, backgrounds, sexes, etc. commit heinous crimes. A factor of difference, and a notable factor indeed, is that of motivation. Atheism does no motivate someone to commit atrocity. It demands nothing at all, as atheism is nondogmatic. fairbanksjohn@hotm..
A non-belief (or a belief) in no god absolutely did affect those atheist leaders. When one has no absolute objective standard of morality outside of themselves, they become the standard and whatever they want becomes right. Part of the reason those leaders committed those atrocities was because they did not have an absolute standard of morality to sway them or prevent them from doing otherwise. They were their own gods and could do as they saw fit..and look what happened.
iaintnot: "When one has no absolute objective standard of morality outside of themselves, they become the standard and whatever they want becomes right."
There IS no "objective" standard of morality.
I know you're going to claim that the bible is, but you know it's not. You cherry pick from the bible some rules, and disregard others (no more killing sunday shoppers, for example).
Philosophy is where we reason out a workable set of morals. Atheism doesn't claim to. Religion fails at it.
not sure what you mean about killing sunday shoppers....but yes I do affirm that the Christian has an objective standard of morality to judge right and wrong--it exists outside of themselves as opposed to the standard an atheist would have. That's not to say that atheists cannot do good or that Christians always do good, but Christians do have that standard which cannot change and have to answer to an authority higher than themselves. I am not sure how philosophy works out morales
The OT law is divided into 3 parts: Civil, Moral, and Priestly. The laws you cite are part of the recorded Civil law which was instituted to keep that society from falling apart and being destroyed at that time. It gets a little involved, but basically that's what those laws were made for--to protect that society at that time.
Essentially the New Testament clarifies and validates certain laws/teachings in the OT. In the OT, the laws are not labeled Civil laws obviously, but taking into account the historical and social context they were made in and what Jesus or the apostles teach about the law in the NT, the concept can be established. Citing specific verses would be tedious; I really wanted to address the issue in general terms for the moment. The key is seeing how the NT teaches about the OT law.
The OT is a record of the history of God's people/humanity in relation to the ultimate plan of the gospel. The reason penalties were so severe in the OT was to demonstrate the severity of God's law and it's uncompromising and holy nature. The OT law was instituted and recorded in scripture to demonstrate this. When Jesus came, he and the apostles explained the purpose of the Mosaic/Lev. law was and how they had been fulfilled in Christ. Romans is a great place to go for this for starters.
What standard can I use to go through the old testament and determine which rules to follow, and which to ignore?
It seems the death penalty was warrented for breaking any of the 10 commandments. What verse relieved that penalty?
And don't say "let he who is without sin...". All that's saying (stupidly) is only perfect people can enforce the law, which is idiotic. It doesn't say the law is invalid.
But the penalty is not a guideline or a reference to enforcement in the same way that the general instructions on life are followed. An instruction, like Honor thy mother and father, is followed; if one follows it another isn't exempt from it. But a penalty, a debt, is something one can follow on the behalf of another. One can pay the debt another owes. He doesn't just pay a debt as if the debt itself is a guideline or instruction to be followed.
What you call "sin" is simply the fact that you're guilty of breaking a rule.
A debt is when you take something from someone, like a loan, and have to pay it back.
And it's not justice if someone else went to jail for a crime you committed. Even if they agreed to it, the person who you harmed with your crime wouldn't accept that as legitimate.
What you're talking about is "Scapegoating" (look it up), and it's a morally bankrupt philosophy.
There are examples we can relate with where a person cannot pay a debt and relies on a good friend to pay it for him. Of course, it's not ideal, and it causes the friend some suffering to the degree of his payment for something he did no wrong doing to deserve. The Cross isn't ideal. But when all humanity is under the penalty and has to die to pay it off, God did a loving thing by paying for us. Redemption doesn't end here, though. It starts here.
God is the person harmed by our crimes. He accepted it as legitimate. Of course, when we think of it as something that leaves us off the hook, without any obligation to do good and be truthful, the cross does seem morally empty. But salvation requires faith in God and in yourself to be changed by him. So it's not just a mere change of blame.
How exactly is god "harmed"? Isn't he omnipotent? How could we possibly do god any harm?
I made a video called "Why aren't we Jesus". Go watch it and comment please. I still haven't heard a good reason for why you think God would create Jesus "perfect" but us "flawed".
It presumes determinism. In other words, you act according to your nature. Just like a very very sophisticated computer program. I happen to agree with this.
As a programmer, do you think I get *angry* with my programs? Particularly when they do interesting and unexpected things? Even if I didn't like what they did, it was my fault for writing them that way.
But this ignores what I said, about free-will. We're good-natured, but act contrary to our nature. All "nature" is expected to mean in this context, and in any scientific context, is a summary of observed tendencies.
Because in scientific terms, "nature" is simply a summary of observable tendencies. There's nothing law-like about human-nature. And a nature is a description of what we actually do. So it's kind of circular to suppose that our "nature" determines our behavior, when in fact our behavior is what describes our "nature". We are free-willed creatures, and so can alter and change, and be.
You said that a penalty, a debt is something that one can pay on behalf of another.
Paying a debt is COMPLETELY different from serving time, or suffering some punishment for crimes you commit.
This also ignores the fact that God basically considers all crimes to be equal. You could rape a baby and then eat it, and that's the same as spitting on the sidewalk, to god.
"Paying a debt is COMPLETELY different from serving time, or suffering some punishment for crimes you commit."
But paying a debt on behalf of someone else is still a form of undeserved punishment.
"crimes to be equal."
I don't think he does. Laws are not intrinsically equal. One who violates one is in the same position of needing a savior as one who has violated all. That is the middle step needed to conclude that a small sinner needs grace, as does a great sinner.
This is unintelligible to me. If it was up to our kissing his ring, then it would follow that he'd pay for our sins only on condition that we first repent. But God paid our debt while we were sinners.
"And all his punishments are the same - death by flaming gasoline. For even trivial infractions."
"This is unintelligible to me. If it was up to our kissing his ring, then it would follow that he'd pay for our sins only on condition that we first repent. But God paid our debt while we were sinners."
I see. So if we don't have to repent, then there is no "Accept Jesus and be saved". By your statement, God has already forgiven everything.
So by extension, your religion allows us to go off and be as evil as we want, because God has already forgiven us.
I already dealt with this. God has already forgiven us while we were yet sinners. But it is our choice to accept his grace to be better people. And we are saved on account of our choice to be saved, to accept his forgiveness.
If he's saved us, why do we have to accept anything? And who has he saved us from? Himself, of course.
You claimed that "God paid our debt while we were sinners". If your debt is paid while you're a sinner, then all you have to do is sin up to the point of death, and you'll die forgiven.
Or maybe I'm still not getting it.
See, the problem with theology is that it doesn't make any sense.
This is quite true, atheism does indeed have no absolute morality. This is because it is not a belief system, it doesn't posit anything about morality whatsoever. Secondly, you are right regarding atheist dictators who have committed genocide on a massive scale. However, those mass murderers of a religious bent whose self assuredness that the divine supports them lived at times when the technology to compete numerically with the atheist despots was not avaliable.
@ChrisGose Science can only explain what is seen therefore all science can tell us is "what is". The reason and cause of what is goes a bit beyond what the human eye can see. The answer to why things happen go beyond physical reason and is created by a force unseen by the human eye. Action produces change in all cases of application. We act to change and the only thing we are driven to change are feelings whether physical, emotional, or mental.....
@ChrisGose Intent is the desire to bring about a result that manifest a feeling. You Eat because you feel hungry. When your hot you desire to be cooler. People get married to feel loved. This is change which is brought about through action and action is life. If feelings are the drive of all actions then what drives feeling? Consciousness. You cannot feel if your not conscious. Science can neither see nor observe consciousness therefore science can only show us what but not why.
Great to see you making new vids Ben. Your comment: "stating that conflict in Ireland is primarily religious requires almost intentional ignorance".....absolutely brilliant and absolutely correct. Take care man. 5*
The distinction relies on recognition of monastic or scriptural authority, which may not be the case (i.e. the many sects). A person motivated by a misapplication of a science is also acting without justification. But this is the reality most of the time whether we deem the results good or bad. Rhetoric and ideology have more of a role in our daily lives than our understanding of hard sciences or logical justification, or scriptural understanding for that matter.
Science does not tell you what ethics are. Dawkins was showing the presence of religion does not automatically bring good, and is often a very good way to hide evil, as "How dare you question the word of God/Alah." Science demands we question. It is the demand we question which will allow the skill/mindset science teaches us to keep evil from happening in the future. Science can not always say what is good, but can teach us to question what would be best, and demands we do.
It's awesome that more people are concerned with my attaching these arguments to Dawkins than they are with their validity. I'll take that to mean that most agree with the points raised =P
Of course we agree and so does Richard. He has a great appreciation for religious art and music and even goes as far as to say that the Bible should be part of any education but only as literature not as claims about the physical world. That's where the rub is. Some adherents think that we are stepping on toes by telling them where they came from physically.
Much of this comes not from evolutionary claims, but from the twin stars of theism as a mental disease and atheism as a position of inherent intelligence. These ideas are incompatible with even a semblance of social responsibility. In a nutshell: I find slogans of atheistic ideological conquest as unsettling as any other sort of ideological conquest. The shape of the rhetoric has disturbing precedents.
Only false beliefs about the physical world in the face of evidence are considered delusional. Such as anyone that believes this planet is only 6,000 years old.
Intelligence leads to atheism, not the other way around. That's not just an opinion either.
You suggest putting sex offenders who basically can not be 'corrected' and almost certainly will offend again back on the street because they have paid their debt? This doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. If I am 'reasonably certain' that you will reoffend, especially in the matter of a serious crime, what right do I have to risk the safety of your next potential victim, and what would you suggest I say to them when they learn I let their attacker free when I knew they would attack again
Punitive measure usually includes a provision for containment. The difference between containment in a punitive scenario and a corrective one is what occurs during that time when we isolate an individual: are we simply containing them, or are we effectively torturing them through our continued inept attempts to "fix" them?
To be honest depending on the nature of the individual's crimes I may be inclined to attempt to 'fix' them if it is possible, but I fail to see why I should allow someone out of jail if I am convinced he's going back again anyway for the same or worse crime?
That's not what I'm talking about. Say you have someone who you can't "fix", but is too dangerous to grant liberty. Do you continue to try to "fix" them while keeping them apart from society, knowing that you won't succeed and wouldn't let them out regardless, or just keep them apart?
Me? I would realize they are not worth keeping alive, and execute them. If someone is that bad, I can not justify either the expense or risk of keeping them alive. If they are healthy I'd salvage their organs to help the sick who are worth keeping alive, and if they are not, then I'd most likely expose them to a toxic gas like H2S as it is a painless neruotoxin.
I don't feel that just because someone is a homo sapien that they are human. You start off in that default position, but if you go out of your way to prove you do our species a disservice, then I will happily suggest you be removed from it. What good can be obtained from you will be, to repay the cost you have incurred upon society. I tend toward a utilitarian ethical framework in case you haven't noticed.
science doesn't tell us "shoulds" because there are no "shoulds". morality and meaning are nothing but games. we have empathy because of biology not because of any bullshit philosophical grounds. I'm surprised you didn't mention eugenics even though that's the biggest horse shit argument against Darwinism ever. the first fucking thing you learn is that not all evolution is adaptive, there is no "end goal", there is no "perfect" and that we are all brothers. your fear is unfounded.
My fear is that there are many people who don't understand the points you just raised and argue to the contrary: that science DOES tell us "shoulds", that from fact claims we can assess moral or normative values.
richard dawkins actions are leading up to the following goal: mockery when believing. when someone has faith, then those beliefs need to be challenged, there needs to be someone present making fun of those beliefs. i dont see any other way how we could solve the problem that is religion.
Yes, you can mock Dawkins all you want but when someone takes the piss out of your silly beliefs you can't shout "I am offended" as if it is an argument.
Contempt is necessary? I see it as an invariably destructive social force, and we inductively recognize it as such {evidenced by our need to excuse its application}. Groups often define themselves by these exceptions, individuals almost never. Telling in its own right, no?
maybe philosophy is not much better than religion..... you use the same strawmans that religious people use to attack science.
we attack cults, religions, we attack immoral entities like the chinese gouvernment. and we defend science. creationism doesnt really hurt anyone, we just fight it to defend science. our weapon is exposure, ridicule, bad publicity, mockery. and of course education.
some of us might add philosophy to the list of opponents. it will start with mockery ;)
The "defenders of science" would do well to defend it from misapplication, appropriation for self aggrandizement, and misrepresentation with the thinly masked intent of anxietas panacea.
I'm surprised that anyone in the English speaking world would trot out the rhetoric of "combat of defense". Are the parallels blatant enough yet? No? Please, let's have more on mockery and ridicule in the service of education.
when im using the word ``we´´, im talking about the antitheists. we will continue to use arguments from reality, solid facts, scientific studies, and scientific knowledge as part of our tools against religion.
and you wont take those tools away from us. for example: disproving parts of the bible using scientific knowledge is not a misapplication of science. using scientific studies to show that islam is dangerous is not a misapplication of science.
"Disproving" parts of the bible is anachronistic, applying criteria for a truth claim to a text that precedes said criteria or context for the sort of truth claim with which you're concerned. Want to disprove CURRENTLY MADE empirical claims regarding the Bible on empirical grounds? Sure, have a ball.
Disprove the text itself? Hermaneutics doesn't lend itself to dualities. My objections to hardline antitheism or radical literalism are the same: we can't know the intended meaning with enough vigor to justify the confidence of either position. The devout circumvent this problem with the internally consistent claim of divinely guided reading. Archaeology, textual criticism, and anthropology don't resolve this problem. If anything, they continue to illustrate how attainable "complete context" is.
It's "Darwin leads to fascism" with an emperor's new wardrobe of sophistry. I wasn't impressed when the theists said it, but somehow I'm even less impressed when philosophers say it.
It stinks of some kind of intellectual jealousy. How many philosophers does it take to get Man to the Moon? None, because you can't talk your way there.
Let's not forget that some of the best scientists were also philosophers: Leibniz, Descartes, and even Einstein. Many, MANY others... Science helps the creative mind stay within a feasible framework!
If we don't distinguish between advocating for science as a positive social force and advocating for science as a complete social system, sure. Who's saying that, exactly?
Science is the method and the body of knowledge attained by said method. It is not a social system. Who said it should be and what would such a system look like?
TC - Science is neither. It simply offers a perspective, what appears to be reality by every measure we can take. That's it. Roll out the strawmen.
You and Az have taken a contrary stance against a claim that is not being made, by anyone. No one is saying science is a "complete social system". CLEAR false dichotomy. How does a brain like yours make this mistake? I find your statements so close to the "Darwinism leads to fascism" bullshit that I can't put a cigarette paper between them.
Phil, you should know better. How many videos, phil? How many videos have I (or Ben) done against science being propagated as an ideology? And how many times have you mistaken each video as an attack on science? All of them, to my recollection. You're right: no one is saying science is a "complete social system." In fact, no one is talking about science at all (which is the point... Dawkins isn't either). This is about ideologies predicated on science.
Dawkins IS pointing out the non-truth and deleterious effects of scriptural, organized religion. As a philosopher, PART of you should applaud this, or is non-truth philosophically desirable? Perhaps you think so little of humanity that you think they NEED non-truth to cope with existence, even though you and TC do not. We are ordinary. Ordinary humans can cope.
Veritas veritas veritas.
What ideologies? What ideologies has Dawkins espoused that made him your target?
The second religion is morally evaluated on empirical criteria {i.e. this claim is untrue, therefore a lie, therefore bad}, empiricism has become an ideological proposition. We glibly go from the factuality of Noah's Ark to the absence of intentionality in cosm to the moral reprehensibility of religion then face first into grotesque misrepresentations of human history, and you ask what ideologies?
If validity of a factual claim is moral authority {i.e. apply the criteria being applied to religion}, does he have a leg to stand on? His grasp on history seems more than a bit shaky, given his blithe assignment of religion as the primary cause of countless world conflicts wherein most reputable historians {not biologists turned pundit} cite numerous factors.
Sit him next to Campbell. Put God Delusion next to Hero with a Thousand Faces. Now look at the VALUE CLAIMS rather than the FACT CLAIMS. Dawkins is the shrieking voice of modernism as its grip is loosened from western thought, the fingers too calcified to bend, instead broken.
When a claim of value is made, one is dealing in philosophy. When it implies prescribed actions, moral philosophy. When it does so by a misapplication of criteria inappropriate to the field of concern, grossly generalizes historical complexities, and relies on inflammatory sloganeering more than measured reasoning, it is the basest of punditry.
The measured reasoning has been done. The world's religions are false and irrational. Clumsy sloganeering is (with deep, deep regret) required to bring INITIAL change.
To explain my simplistic position: I see you and Az beating up the guy who just kicked a mugger in the face. I see you as exploring the ethics of how to overpower and re-educate the mugger even as the mugging is taking place, and criticizing the man who is actually trying to do something.
Who's says there aren't MANY factors? But to deny religion WAS one of the primary factors in past conflicts (if not in cause then in facilitation) would be naive. You are NOT naive. Yet in this debate you ignore the gross culpability of religion in historical conflict and suggest, seemingly, that scientific empiricism (the assessment of factual accuracy) may lead to a greater "evil", when it had NO role in historical disputes and even had the capacity to dilute the religious fervor that was.
Blah. You're not listening. Nobody's saying it is scientific empiricism leads to any evil. What I have said, and what Ben is saying, is that when an ideology is coupled with science, the IDEOLOGY is that much more convincing. If we want to play simplistic history here, we can bring up the atheism of communism, which was put there explicitly to lend a materialistic credibility to that political ideology. It's an ABUSE of science.
It's not that I'm not listening, Az. It's that I can't hear anything in your argument as it relates to what Dawkins is saying. I cannot hear an ideology coming from Dawkins. I guess I must be too dumb to understand. How embarrassing for me.
paraphrasing: religion is a virus that we have a moral obligation to eradicate. Religious conviction is a product of ignorance or stupidity and produces uniformly immoral influences. There ya go: two ideological propositions fundamental to his position.
You once said (while speaking of What the Bleep) that the thing about bullshit is that it's mixed with just enough true stuff. Imagine that all empirical claims an ideology makes are scientific, but the thing about this ideology is that it has a code of ethics, ethics not being scientific, tagged onto it. The claim then goes: to follow the ideology is to be scientific, which lends credibility to the code of ethics.
To have a mission, to have intent, while doing science is to bring an ideology (however unsaid) to science. The science isn't ideological, the person is. Some people can admit and make sure that the science and their ideology are not confused. Dawkins is not one of those people.
Education becomes propaganda when you're taught certain things that lead you to construct and conclude an ideology. Imagine a child who's only told of the good things of the world; they'd probably think the world is a rather good place. You've seen him list the wars he's linked to religion, you've seen him list the things gone wrong with the world "at the hands of religion," and you DON'T call that propaganda?
How many people have actually bothered to study the Crusades, rather than taking it at face value that they are as they are usually presented? Most of his examples are far less ambiguous: religious conflict in Ireland is inseparable from nationalistic concerns, the Holocaust TARGETED religious and ethnic groups {among others, often overlooked} but did not draw from religious rhetoric for its propaganda, etc, etc.
He's too smart to not know what he's doing: playing in the ambiguities of "historical cause" {another area where empiricistic impulses are best suppressed} to gain another leg of support. As a biologist he recognizes that his "viral" claims SHOULD be morally neutral, but relies on the layman connotations to play the crowd. He is far too intelligent to be perpetuating these mistakes earnestly. It seems far more likely that he does so because they are "good copy".
"How many people have actually bothered to study the Crusades, rather than taking it at face value that they are as they are usually presented?"
You have hit upon the great secret: There are secular myths which are important to secularism as an ideology as are religious myths to their faiths. Galileo before the inquisition as it's regularly presented is a secularist myth. The Crusades as presented are a secularist myth. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the same.
Empiricism is a way of accessing factuality and often measuring it. If you think measuring and testing accuracy is an ideological position then I, obviously disagree.
Noah's Ark is bull, ergo it has NO role to play in assessing the intentionality or otherwise of the cosmos. It is moot. Any bridge to any other point by any side is sheared by the ark's falsehood. If someone says it happened I or anyone else has good reason (truth) for saying, "no".
Although I know you can dispute and debate the meaning of "truth" and "value" and "falsehood" forever. And your thinking will be far more detailed than mine. But I do not see it as efficient when dealing with an imminent problem. You may argue there is no problem. That seems to be your position.
What's the indication that I don't see a problem? I'm saying that an equally reactionary, pejorative solution is no solution at all, only an escalation.
For crying out loud... have you EVER seen him speak? The rhetoric flies fast and reckless, facts are replaced with dogma, et al. The slogan of "theism as a mind disorder", absurd historical propositions {stating that conflict in Ireland is primarily religious requires almost intentional ignorance}, and the snarling demands of superiority have no educational value. Education is vital but if these are the means by which it is defended, it is already lost.
Apparently Dawkins is he's trying to break down a wall and the philosophers rather like some of the bricks in the wall, little realizing (or accepting) that the bricks themselves are not destroyed and may be used in a more solid structure later on. For now, all I see is a wall. I am prepared to debate many things, but not which hammer to use. The philosophers can save the worthwhile bricks and design the next structure. If the philosophers can live ethically without religion, so can we all.
I'm so GLAD you're back! However, I'm a bit confused by your example of corrective vs punitive systems. The corrective in your example seems more like classical behaviorism, rather than a direct correlative to Dawkins' views. Yes, Dawkins' view of genetic determinism has a wide and fashionable appear. AND I think that that appeal results from a profound misunderstanding, but I don't think it can be directly applied to your example. The problem is in gene's context not to this application.
The genetic component only compounds the problem. Punitive action becomes nonsensical, arbitrary, and corrective action is faced with an unsolvable problem. I didn't want to drop the "eugenics" bomb in the vid {contentious enough}, but....
I just don't see this argument the same way. I'm NO fan of Dawkins, but I think there is ABSOLUTELY no connect between Dawkins and anything that has the slightest hint of eugenics. My problem with Dawkins is that he fails to keep up with some of the amazing advances in biochemistry and molecular biology. Specifically, he refuses to address advances in epigenetic and systems biology, and this leads him to outdated positions on genetic determinism...
I like this dialogue that's going on about science's place in ethics.
But, if not by science, how can we learn that religions are myth? So while science may not tell us what are morals 'should' be based on, it can at least show us that our morals may be based on dogmas that aren't really true.
Thus it opens the door for further discussion and scrutiny of our ethics.
Moreover, once an ethical goal/framework is chosen, isn't science able to explore better processes to achieve said goal/fr.wrk?
The moment he prescribes courses of action on moral grounds based on scientific authority, he has done so. Drawing from "scientific" claims regarding the nature of religion and its influence on human history is an appeal to this authority. Assessing these elements on moral grounds, relying on that authority, creates exactly that: ethics from "science". Note the quotation marks.
"he moment he prescribes courses of action on moral grounds based on scientific authority, he has done so."
I'm sure he presents the insights of science with the aim of informing moral decisions. Nowhere though, to my knowledge, has he tried to tell us though how we should decide what is right and wrong. He sees ethics as a discussion separate to science.
The quote marks are significant. What i still think needs to be done is to show that he does consider whichever claims you're thinking of to have scientific support.
As well as a scientist he is an educator and a polemicist. His critics assume he has the roles confused, but i see no evidence that he does.
Do you guys get some special bulk price on straw if you all chip in together or something?
Watch my video response to Az if you don't believe me. Dawkins has said time and time again things like, reason doesn't give us morals but they should be defensible by reason.
Your complaint is valid, there are people that think like you claim they do, but they are few and far between and definitely do not include Dawkins as part of that group nor any self-respecting disbeliever of objective morality.
Another fantastic video. Sub'd! Really glad I found your channel. Do you have an introductory video, i.e. summary of ideas or some info about yourself or your general position(s)?
L1ber8ted 2 months ago
I'm sorry ... are you the user azrienoch with a haircut by chance? I cannot help but notice the striking similarities.
8bitnecromancer 1 year ago
@8bitnecromancer Lol I think Ben's channel should have a banner that says "It's like Azrienoch with a haircut". It wouldn't make sense now, but that adds to the hilarity I think.
fauyd 1 year ago
Could you give an example of someone using science to make an ethical or moral statement?.
M0THERKN0WSBEST 1 year ago
@M0THERKN0WSBEST As an example, you could use science to justify (assert the "goodness" of) weeding out the gene-pool of genetic "defectives" through euthanasia or mandatory sterilization. But that, of course, would be wrong.
necroticossuary 8 months ago in playlist theology
Mate you are too brainy for me, but you sound like a genius!!!
MrGeorgios2020 1 year ago
Christians ant talk about morals when the bible says adulterers should be stoned to death. Along with other sinners . Wake up, open your eyes. Religion is just a method of control.
dazzzdelux 1 year ago
Agree ?
PiratGeneralen 1 year ago
NO one uses science to make ethical or moral statement -
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 yeah they do
PiratGeneralen 1 year ago
@PiratGeneralen OK fine a should rephrases that. Science dosen't make any ethical or moral statement . For example the chemistry involve in making gun poweder for exmaple is unethical or imoral as such even though guns have killed alot of people
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Exactly
PiratGeneralen 1 year ago
Zeitgeist: addendum/ Venus Project will help this debates in human behaving thats not natural at all.
AzoreanProud 3 years ago
I've yet to be convinced that the natural/unnatural dichotomy is anything but an authority claim or appeal to aesthetic.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
These concepts are "mind-blowing." What would happen if TheCarruths and/or Azrienoch had a debate with Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist: Addendum? Put that in your pipe, and smoke it!
jferrara78 3 years ago
You think exactly like I do, my friend. The answer to why it wouldn't happen is simple. If 10 people are in a room and there is one lightbulb and one socket in the ceiling and after a week the bulb isn't put in the socket, then the goal was never for the room to be with light. The goal was to see who would be the one to put the bulb in.
MrHolipsism 3 years ago
Reminds me of one the best jokes I've heard:
Q:How many microbiologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:Whatever you think the answer MAY be, change that lightbulb soon!
All parties claim to be informed and wise,and their level of debate are about equal.We ALL could benefit from such a debate.Besides,isn't that what PJ,Az, and Carr are all about?Sharing knowledge/ideas?
I understand that we all are the 10 people,the lightbulb is our ideas,the socket a radio show,ilumination our gains.
jferrara78 3 years ago
what's with the freaky piercing? you're a fucking sect or something?
anarchonism 3 years ago
I tried to watch this, but you have a face best suited for radio
thinker222 3 years ago
You're clearly intelligent enough to have considered the reasons for getting the metal "jewelry". What are they?
I ask because my reaction to such "expression" is to snicker. There is a greater corrolation of such facial ornateness with lower intelligence then with higher intelligence. Given your ability to articulate your thoughts puts you in the higher intelligence bracket and so there must be some really really really really good reason why you decided this was the look for you.
brazensteel 3 years ago
His face rings make him even more awesome.
overmation 3 years ago 3
perhaps he has chosen to not conform with a close minded standard that "judges a book by it's cover". Perhaps also he has surrounded himself with other 'enlightened' people who choose to not judge him on his appearance. Furthermore is the possibility that in his circle of 'enlightened' associates "facial ornateness" is actually paired with intelligence. At last check, piercing your epidermis does not damage your brain function or lower your intelligence quotient. Just a thought.
aknightofswords 3 years ago
You should join the "let's smear sh1t on our faces and not conform to close minded standards" group. Last time I heard smearing sh1t on your face does not damage your brain function or lower your intelligence either. Just a thought.
brazensteel 3 years ago
Though Im not much into 'shit-on-face', and though I do not have any piercings, your offer is actually viable, and you assessment correct. As much as it might offend your sensibilities, the only barometer of intelligence here is your weak responses.
aknightofswords 3 years ago
I enjoyed this, thank you.
chris3443 3 years ago
Absolute authority borne of an ideology is a better thing to derive morality from than reason? Forgive me if i disagree.
Religion can be corrective (Convert!) just as much as reason can be punitive (IE, your entire argument, based on reason).
Saktoth 3 years ago
Look, its another guy with metal shit in his face
phartknocker1 3 years ago
Look, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it seems possible to me that neither do you, so I'll let you off. You and your friend Azrienoch are certainly confused at what you read in "The God Delusion." Dawkins doesn't mean to assert that Biology should dictate our valuations of ethics. He is a man, who is also a science, who does two things in his book: he demonstrates, historically and rationally, the danger of these religions, and he answers the arguments from Creationism against science.
Ezratal 3 years ago
There is at least as much reason to believe that atheism is as or more dangerous. In an atheistic worldview there is no absolute morality, and historically speaking, atheist leaders have committed genocide and murder on an unfathomable scale.
iaintnot 3 years ago
There is no rational argument by which atheism can be demonstrated as dangerous but to go in-depth I'd need there not to be a limit to what I can say, and that's perfectly true that atheist leaders have commited murder. People of all races, creeds, backgrounds, sexes, etc. commit heinous crimes. A factor of difference, and a notable factor indeed, is that of motivation. Atheism does no motivate someone to commit atrocity. It demands nothing at all, as atheism is nondogmatic. fairbanksjohn@hotm..
Ezratal 3 years ago
A non-belief (or a belief) in no god absolutely did affect those atheist leaders. When one has no absolute objective standard of morality outside of themselves, they become the standard and whatever they want becomes right. Part of the reason those leaders committed those atrocities was because they did not have an absolute standard of morality to sway them or prevent them from doing otherwise. They were their own gods and could do as they saw fit..and look what happened.
iaintnot 3 years ago
iaintnot: "When one has no absolute objective standard of morality outside of themselves, they become the standard and whatever they want becomes right."
There IS no "objective" standard of morality.
I know you're going to claim that the bible is, but you know it's not. You cherry pick from the bible some rules, and disregard others (no more killing sunday shoppers, for example).
Philosophy is where we reason out a workable set of morals. Atheism doesn't claim to. Religion fails at it.
OccamKant 3 years ago
not sure what you mean about killing sunday shoppers....but yes I do affirm that the Christian has an objective standard of morality to judge right and wrong--it exists outside of themselves as opposed to the standard an atheist would have. That's not to say that atheists cannot do good or that Christians always do good, but Christians do have that standard which cannot change and have to answer to an authority higher than themselves. I am not sure how philosophy works out morales
iaintnot 3 years ago
Your bible is an objective standard of right and wrong, eh?
Do you follow ALL the rules? Stone non-virgin brides? Stone those who work (or shop) on sunday? Do you kill for these stupid "crimes"?
Explain how it's objectively moral to kill a woman who is not a virgin when she marries.
OccamKant 3 years ago
The OT law is divided into 3 parts: Civil, Moral, and Priestly. The laws you cite are part of the recorded Civil law which was instituted to keep that society from falling apart and being destroyed at that time. It gets a little involved, but basically that's what those laws were made for--to protect that society at that time.
iaintnot 3 years ago 2
Can you give me bible scriptures that back this up?
I've read a lot of the bible, and I don't recall anything supporting what you're saying.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Essentially the New Testament clarifies and validates certain laws/teachings in the OT. In the OT, the laws are not labeled Civil laws obviously, but taking into account the historical and social context they were made in and what Jesus or the apostles teach about the law in the NT, the concept can be established. Citing specific verses would be tedious; I really wanted to address the issue in general terms for the moment. The key is seeing how the NT teaches about the OT law.
iaintnot 3 years ago 2
Well, it still sounds like unfounded and unbased interpretation.
Why would the OT need to be clarified? It's inspired by God. How can you improve on perfection?
If God wanted it different, he would have made it different, no? He's omnipotent after all.
I've seen no reason whatsoever to take the scriptures as other than precisely what they say.
Otherwise you end up with a forest of interpretations, and the hundreds of christian sects.
OccamKant 3 years ago
The OT is a record of the history of God's people/humanity in relation to the ultimate plan of the gospel. The reason penalties were so severe in the OT was to demonstrate the severity of God's law and it's uncompromising and holy nature. The OT law was instituted and recorded in scripture to demonstrate this. When Jesus came, he and the apostles explained the purpose of the Mosaic/Lev. law was and how they had been fulfilled in Christ. Romans is a great place to go for this for starters.
iaintnot 3 years ago 3
What standard can I use to go through the old testament and determine which rules to follow, and which to ignore?
It seems the death penalty was warrented for breaking any of the 10 commandments. What verse relieved that penalty?
And don't say "let he who is without sin...". All that's saying (stupidly) is only perfect people can enforce the law, which is idiotic. It doesn't say the law is invalid.
OccamKant 3 years ago
But does imply that all deserve the death penalty. The penalty wasn't "relieved". It was fulfilled.
legodesi 3 years ago
You are making no grammatical sense using 'fulfilled' in that manner.
When Jesus said "I come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it", the only definition of "fulfill" that makes grammatical sense is "enforce".
A law is not a contract or agreement to be fulfilled. It is a guideline for behavior.
OccamKant 3 years ago
But the penalty is not a guideline or a reference to enforcement in the same way that the general instructions on life are followed. An instruction, like Honor thy mother and father, is followed; if one follows it another isn't exempt from it. But a penalty, a debt, is something one can follow on the behalf of another. One can pay the debt another owes. He doesn't just pay a debt as if the debt itself is a guideline or instruction to be followed.
legodesi 3 years ago
Sin isn't a debt.
What you call "sin" is simply the fact that you're guilty of breaking a rule.
A debt is when you take something from someone, like a loan, and have to pay it back.
And it's not justice if someone else went to jail for a crime you committed. Even if they agreed to it, the person who you harmed with your crime wouldn't accept that as legitimate.
What you're talking about is "Scapegoating" (look it up), and it's a morally bankrupt philosophy.
OccamKant 3 years ago
But I didn't say sin is a debt.
There are examples we can relate with where a person cannot pay a debt and relies on a good friend to pay it for him. Of course, it's not ideal, and it causes the friend some suffering to the degree of his payment for something he did no wrong doing to deserve. The Cross isn't ideal. But when all humanity is under the penalty and has to die to pay it off, God did a loving thing by paying for us. Redemption doesn't end here, though. It starts here.
legodesi 3 years ago
God is the person harmed by our crimes. He accepted it as legitimate. Of course, when we think of it as something that leaves us off the hook, without any obligation to do good and be truthful, the cross does seem morally empty. But salvation requires faith in God and in yourself to be changed by him. So it's not just a mere change of blame.
legodesi 3 years ago
How exactly is god "harmed"? Isn't he omnipotent? How could we possibly do god any harm?
I made a video called "Why aren't we Jesus". Go watch it and comment please. I still haven't heard a good reason for why you think God would create Jesus "perfect" but us "flawed".
OccamKant 3 years ago
Harmed, as "offended". Being omnipotent doesn't seem relevant to this.
legodesi 3 years ago
Why would "God" be offended by anything we did? If he indeed created us, then he by definition set up all of our operational parameters.
Anything we can do, we can only do because we were created this way.
It's like building a faulty house, then being angry at the house for being faulty. The fault lies in the creator.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"we can only do because we were created this way."
This all presumes some predeterminism, which obviously should be argued before we argue this.
legodesi 3 years ago
No, it doesn't presume predeterminism.
It presumes determinism. In other words, you act according to your nature. Just like a very very sophisticated computer program. I happen to agree with this.
As a programmer, do you think I get *angry* with my programs? Particularly when they do interesting and unexpected things? Even if I didn't like what they did, it was my fault for writing them that way.
OccamKant 3 years ago
But this ignores what I said, about free-will. We're good-natured, but act contrary to our nature. All "nature" is expected to mean in this context, and in any scientific context, is a summary of observed tendencies.
legodesi 3 years ago
You cannot act contrary to your nature.
If you claim you can, please produce evidence supporting that.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Because in scientific terms, "nature" is simply a summary of observable tendencies. There's nothing law-like about human-nature. And a nature is a description of what we actually do. So it's kind of circular to suppose that our "nature" determines our behavior, when in fact our behavior is what describes our "nature". We are free-willed creatures, and so can alter and change, and be.
legodesi 3 years ago
I've never heard a definition of naturalism that matches what you just said.
I don't think you're supposed to invent your own definitions for things.
OccamKant 3 years ago
That would be expected, because I wasn't providing a definition of naturalism.
legodesi 3 years ago
You said that a penalty, a debt is something that one can pay on behalf of another.
Paying a debt is COMPLETELY different from serving time, or suffering some punishment for crimes you commit.
This also ignores the fact that God basically considers all crimes to be equal. You could rape a baby and then eat it, and that's the same as spitting on the sidewalk, to god.
That's morally bankrupt.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Paying a debt is COMPLETELY different from serving time, or suffering some punishment for crimes you commit."
But paying a debt on behalf of someone else is still a form of undeserved punishment.
"crimes to be equal."
I don't think he does. Laws are not intrinsically equal. One who violates one is in the same position of needing a savior as one who has violated all. That is the middle step needed to conclude that a small sinner needs grace, as does a great sinner.
legodesi 3 years ago
No. Paying a debt for someone else is not punishment unless it's forced upon you. If you willingly cover a friend of yours, you aren't being punished.
You only need a savior from god, because god is the one who's going to torture you.
And "death" is the punishment for just about everything in the OT, and hell is the punishment for everything in the NT.
The god of the bible is completely unjust.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Occam,
We're jumping around different topics here.
"If you willingly cover a friend of yours, you aren't being punished."
Then in that case, God's covering us isn't like punishment in a way that makes it unjust, since he voluntarily chose to cover our debt.
legodesi 3 years ago
He doesn't cover anyone's debt.
Since he is the debtee (supposedly), all he's doing is forgiving a debt or not. However, it's not a debt, since we've borrowed nothing from god.
Debt is a terrible analogy to "sin". Crime is much closer.
God is basically like a crime boss who, if you offend him, will torture you. But if you kiss his ring, may let you off.
And all his punishments are the same - death by flaming gasoline. For even trivial infractions.
No justice there.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"all he's doing is forgiving a debt or not"
By paying out our debts for us.
"God is basically like a crime boss."
This is unintelligible to me. If it was up to our kissing his ring, then it would follow that he'd pay for our sins only on condition that we first repent. But God paid our debt while we were sinners.
"And all his punishments are the same - death by flaming gasoline. For even trivial infractions."
Interesting, a strawman, and irrelevant.
legodesi 3 years ago
Paying our debts? What debts? To who?
If you owe me money (a debt), would I be "paying" it for you? Or just "forgiving" the debt?
I say God is like a crime boss because his choice is "Get down on your knees and worship me or I'll torture you forever"
Also, you obviously don't understand the definition of strawman. Go look it up.
OccamKant 3 years ago
""paying" it for you?"
No, but in a sense, the money you owe him that you haven't paid back is his favor to you.
legodesi 3 years ago
"This is unintelligible to me. If it was up to our kissing his ring, then it would follow that he'd pay for our sins only on condition that we first repent. But God paid our debt while we were sinners."
I see. So if we don't have to repent, then there is no "Accept Jesus and be saved". By your statement, God has already forgiven everything.
So by extension, your religion allows us to go off and be as evil as we want, because God has already forgiven us.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"your religion allows"
I already dealt with this. God has already forgiven us while we were yet sinners. But it is our choice to accept his grace to be better people. And we are saved on account of our choice to be saved, to accept his forgiveness.
legodesi 3 years ago
If he's saved us, why do we have to accept anything? And who has he saved us from? Himself, of course.
You claimed that "God paid our debt while we were sinners". If your debt is paid while you're a sinner, then all you have to do is sin up to the point of death, and you'll die forgiven.
Or maybe I'm still not getting it.
See, the problem with theology is that it doesn't make any sense.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"If your debt is paid while you're a sinner, then all you have to do is sin up to the point of death, and you'll die forgiven."
I'm tired of answering this. Goodbye.
legodesi 3 years ago
Actually, you're tired of not answering it.
Bon voyage.
OccamKant 3 years ago
This is quite true, atheism does indeed have no absolute morality. This is because it is not a belief system, it doesn't posit anything about morality whatsoever. Secondly, you are right regarding atheist dictators who have committed genocide on a massive scale. However, those mass murderers of a religious bent whose self assuredness that the divine supports them lived at times when the technology to compete numerically with the atheist despots was not avaliable.
SentinelConvergence 3 years ago
[1:00] "Science... makes no ideological claims."
Care to elaborate, because I'd say the evidence suggests you're dead wrong on this one.
MrCropper 3 years ago
Science may be able to tell us how and why we have emotions and empathy in the first place.
But it doesn't tell us how we should use the emotions themselves.
I fail to see how people make the following connection:
"I know HOW and WHY emotions work, therefore I can tell you what to do with them."
Good video.
ChrisGose 3 years ago 4
Exactly.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
@ChrisGose Science can only explain what is seen therefore all science can tell us is "what is". The reason and cause of what is goes a bit beyond what the human eye can see. The answer to why things happen go beyond physical reason and is created by a force unseen by the human eye. Action produces change in all cases of application. We act to change and the only thing we are driven to change are feelings whether physical, emotional, or mental.....
ophiuchus1130 1 year ago
@ChrisGose Intent is the desire to bring about a result that manifest a feeling. You Eat because you feel hungry. When your hot you desire to be cooler. People get married to feel loved. This is change which is brought about through action and action is life. If feelings are the drive of all actions then what drives feeling? Consciousness. You cannot feel if your not conscious. Science can neither see nor observe consciousness therefore science can only show us what but not why.
ophiuchus1130 1 year ago
Science tells us we "SHOULD" be skeptical of science.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
Great to see you making new vids Ben. Your comment: "stating that conflict in Ireland is primarily religious requires almost intentional ignorance".....absolutely brilliant and absolutely correct. Take care man. 5*
oldbrigade 3 years ago
The distinction relies on recognition of monastic or scriptural authority, which may not be the case (i.e. the many sects). A person motivated by a misapplication of a science is also acting without justification. But this is the reality most of the time whether we deem the results good or bad. Rhetoric and ideology have more of a role in our daily lives than our understanding of hard sciences or logical justification, or scriptural understanding for that matter.
mdcaigoy 3 years ago
Science does not tell you what ethics are. Dawkins was showing the presence of religion does not automatically bring good, and is often a very good way to hide evil, as "How dare you question the word of God/Alah." Science demands we question. It is the demand we question which will allow the skill/mindset science teaches us to keep evil from happening in the future. Science can not always say what is good, but can teach us to question what would be best, and demands we do.
mordinvan 3 years ago
It's awesome that more people are concerned with my attaching these arguments to Dawkins than they are with their validity. I'll take that to mean that most agree with the points raised =P
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Of course we agree and so does Richard. He has a great appreciation for religious art and music and even goes as far as to say that the Bible should be part of any education but only as literature not as claims about the physical world. That's where the rub is. Some adherents think that we are stepping on toes by telling them where they came from physically.
PZMyersPhD 3 years ago
Much of this comes not from evolutionary claims, but from the twin stars of theism as a mental disease and atheism as a position of inherent intelligence. These ideas are incompatible with even a semblance of social responsibility. In a nutshell: I find slogans of atheistic ideological conquest as unsettling as any other sort of ideological conquest. The shape of the rhetoric has disturbing precedents.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Only false beliefs about the physical world in the face of evidence are considered delusional. Such as anyone that believes this planet is only 6,000 years old.
Intelligence leads to atheism, not the other way around. That's not just an opinion either.
moses . creighton . edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
PZMyersPhD 3 years ago
You suggest putting sex offenders who basically can not be 'corrected' and almost certainly will offend again back on the street because they have paid their debt? This doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. If I am 'reasonably certain' that you will reoffend, especially in the matter of a serious crime, what right do I have to risk the safety of your next potential victim, and what would you suggest I say to them when they learn I let their attacker free when I knew they would attack again
mordinvan 3 years ago
Punitive measure usually includes a provision for containment. The difference between containment in a punitive scenario and a corrective one is what occurs during that time when we isolate an individual: are we simply containing them, or are we effectively torturing them through our continued inept attempts to "fix" them?
TheCarruths 3 years ago
To be honest depending on the nature of the individual's crimes I may be inclined to attempt to 'fix' them if it is possible, but I fail to see why I should allow someone out of jail if I am convinced he's going back again anyway for the same or worse crime?
mordinvan 3 years ago
That's not what I'm talking about. Say you have someone who you can't "fix", but is too dangerous to grant liberty. Do you continue to try to "fix" them while keeping them apart from society, knowing that you won't succeed and wouldn't let them out regardless, or just keep them apart?
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Me? I would realize they are not worth keeping alive, and execute them. If someone is that bad, I can not justify either the expense or risk of keeping them alive. If they are healthy I'd salvage their organs to help the sick who are worth keeping alive, and if they are not, then I'd most likely expose them to a toxic gas like H2S as it is a painless neruotoxin.
mordinvan 3 years ago
I don't feel that just because someone is a homo sapien that they are human. You start off in that default position, but if you go out of your way to prove you do our species a disservice, then I will happily suggest you be removed from it. What good can be obtained from you will be, to repay the cost you have incurred upon society. I tend toward a utilitarian ethical framework in case you haven't noticed.
mordinvan 3 years ago
science doesn't tell us "shoulds" because there are no "shoulds". morality and meaning are nothing but games. we have empathy because of biology not because of any bullshit philosophical grounds. I'm surprised you didn't mention eugenics even though that's the biggest horse shit argument against Darwinism ever. the first fucking thing you learn is that not all evolution is adaptive, there is no "end goal", there is no "perfect" and that we are all brothers. your fear is unfounded.
scienceismyreligion 3 years ago 2
My fear is that there are many people who don't understand the points you just raised and argue to the contrary: that science DOES tell us "shoulds", that from fact claims we can assess moral or normative values.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Interesting video.
worldlystone 3 years ago
What does tell us "shoulds"?
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Ideologies, of course.
azrienoch 3 years ago
So my friend Hobbes is an ideology?
He is also a tiger btw.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Hobbes had an ideology. (I do like Leviathan. Disagree with it, but really like it.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
I'm talking about a comic what do you mean? lol
I don't agree with Leviathan either.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Ohhhh, right. Well, actually, yes. I remember seeing a sort of expose on the philosophy of Calvin & Hobbes.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Good to see a video Ben, I appreciate them all.
wanman0813 3 years ago
punching when swearing?
and what dangers are you talking about?
richard dawkins actions are leading up to the following goal: mockery when believing. when someone has faith, then those beliefs need to be challenged, there needs to be someone present making fun of those beliefs. i dont see any other way how we could solve the problem that is religion.
and i dont see how this could be problematic.
kurtilein3 3 years ago
So you agree that evolutionists, spcifically those in the science fetishist camp (Dawkins), should be mocked. Excellent! I'm glad we agree.
What's it like to watch a 7 minute video of 1 person talking and not grasp a single word?
BTW what makes religion a problem and why?
msa1985 3 years ago
What's it like to not understand the difference between faith and belief?
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
Yes, you can mock Dawkins all you want but when someone takes the piss out of your silly beliefs you can't shout "I am offended" as if it is an argument.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Contempt is necessary? I see it as an invariably destructive social force, and we inductively recognize it as such {evidenced by our need to excuse its application}. Groups often define themselves by these exceptions, individuals almost never. Telling in its own right, no?
TheCarruths 3 years ago
"Contempt is necessary?"
It is a feeling. No more necessary than any other.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
maybe philosophy is not much better than religion..... you use the same strawmans that religious people use to attack science.
we attack cults, religions, we attack immoral entities like the chinese gouvernment. and we defend science. creationism doesnt really hurt anyone, we just fight it to defend science. our weapon is exposure, ridicule, bad publicity, mockery. and of course education.
some of us might add philosophy to the list of opponents. it will start with mockery ;)
kurtilein3 3 years ago
The "defenders of science" would do well to defend it from misapplication, appropriation for self aggrandizement, and misrepresentation with the thinly masked intent of anxietas panacea.
I'm surprised that anyone in the English speaking world would trot out the rhetoric of "combat of defense". Are the parallels blatant enough yet? No? Please, let's have more on mockery and ridicule in the service of education.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
maybe i need to clarify.
when im using the word ``we´´, im talking about the antitheists. we will continue to use arguments from reality, solid facts, scientific studies, and scientific knowledge as part of our tools against religion.
and you wont take those tools away from us. for example: disproving parts of the bible using scientific knowledge is not a misapplication of science. using scientific studies to show that islam is dangerous is not a misapplication of science.
kurtilein3 3 years ago
"Disproving" parts of the bible is anachronistic, applying criteria for a truth claim to a text that precedes said criteria or context for the sort of truth claim with which you're concerned. Want to disprove CURRENTLY MADE empirical claims regarding the Bible on empirical grounds? Sure, have a ball.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Disprove the text itself? Hermaneutics doesn't lend itself to dualities. My objections to hardline antitheism or radical literalism are the same: we can't know the intended meaning with enough vigor to justify the confidence of either position. The devout circumvent this problem with the internally consistent claim of divinely guided reading. Archaeology, textual criticism, and anthropology don't resolve this problem. If anything, they continue to illustrate how attainable "complete context" is.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
if the book is so great, then why dont you believe in the bible?
kurtilein3 3 years ago
So Carl Sagan (surely the most "evangelical" scientist ever) was really a frustrated nazi? Interesting theory.
philhellenes 3 years ago
By interesting do you mean stupid?
Mjhavok 3 years ago
It's "Darwin leads to fascism" with an emperor's new wardrobe of sophistry. I wasn't impressed when the theists said it, but somehow I'm even less impressed when philosophers say it.
It stinks of some kind of intellectual jealousy. How many philosophers does it take to get Man to the Moon? None, because you can't talk your way there.
philhellenes 3 years ago
"How many philosophers does it take to get Man to the Moon? None, because you can't talk your way there."
lulz
Mjhavok 3 years ago
"How many philosophers does it take to get Man to the Moon?"
It only takes one to ask why it's a worthwhile accomplishment.
rebyoshi 3 years ago
Let's not forget that some of the best scientists were also philosophers: Leibniz, Descartes, and even Einstein. Many, MANY others... Science helps the creative mind stay within a feasible framework!
jferrara78 3 years ago
If we don't distinguish between advocating for science as a positive social force and advocating for science as a complete social system, sure. Who's saying that, exactly?
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Science is the method and the body of knowledge attained by said method. It is not a social system. Who said it should be and what would such a system look like?
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Yes well said.
btw, as a former "fundamentalist christian" I personally know that extremists "on the other side" don't help to change minds for the better.
ndjarnag 3 years ago
TC - Science is neither. It simply offers a perspective, what appears to be reality by every measure we can take. That's it. Roll out the strawmen.
You and Az have taken a contrary stance against a claim that is not being made, by anyone. No one is saying science is a "complete social system". CLEAR false dichotomy. How does a brain like yours make this mistake? I find your statements so close to the "Darwinism leads to fascism" bullshit that I can't put a cigarette paper between them.
philhellenes 3 years ago
Phil, you should know better. How many videos, phil? How many videos have I (or Ben) done against science being propagated as an ideology? And how many times have you mistaken each video as an attack on science? All of them, to my recollection. You're right: no one is saying science is a "complete social system." In fact, no one is talking about science at all (which is the point... Dawkins isn't either). This is about ideologies predicated on science.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Dawkins IS pointing out the non-truth and deleterious effects of scriptural, organized religion. As a philosopher, PART of you should applaud this, or is non-truth philosophically desirable? Perhaps you think so little of humanity that you think they NEED non-truth to cope with existence, even though you and TC do not. We are ordinary. Ordinary humans can cope.
Veritas veritas veritas.
What ideologies? What ideologies has Dawkins espoused that made him your target?
philhellenes 3 years ago
The second religion is morally evaluated on empirical criteria {i.e. this claim is untrue, therefore a lie, therefore bad}, empiricism has become an ideological proposition. We glibly go from the factuality of Noah's Ark to the absence of intentionality in cosm to the moral reprehensibility of religion then face first into grotesque misrepresentations of human history, and you ask what ideologies?
TheCarruths 3 years ago
If validity of a factual claim is moral authority {i.e. apply the criteria being applied to religion}, does he have a leg to stand on? His grasp on history seems more than a bit shaky, given his blithe assignment of religion as the primary cause of countless world conflicts wherein most reputable historians {not biologists turned pundit} cite numerous factors.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Sit him next to Campbell. Put God Delusion next to Hero with a Thousand Faces. Now look at the VALUE CLAIMS rather than the FACT CLAIMS. Dawkins is the shrieking voice of modernism as its grip is loosened from western thought, the fingers too calcified to bend, instead broken.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
When a claim of value is made, one is dealing in philosophy. When it implies prescribed actions, moral philosophy. When it does so by a misapplication of criteria inappropriate to the field of concern, grossly generalizes historical complexities, and relies on inflammatory sloganeering more than measured reasoning, it is the basest of punditry.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
The measured reasoning has been done. The world's religions are false and irrational. Clumsy sloganeering is (with deep, deep regret) required to bring INITIAL change.
To explain my simplistic position: I see you and Az beating up the guy who just kicked a mugger in the face. I see you as exploring the ethics of how to overpower and re-educate the mugger even as the mugging is taking place, and criticizing the man who is actually trying to do something.
philhellenes 3 years ago
Who's says there aren't MANY factors? But to deny religion WAS one of the primary factors in past conflicts (if not in cause then in facilitation) would be naive. You are NOT naive. Yet in this debate you ignore the gross culpability of religion in historical conflict and suggest, seemingly, that scientific empiricism (the assessment of factual accuracy) may lead to a greater "evil", when it had NO role in historical disputes and even had the capacity to dilute the religious fervor that was.
philhellenes 3 years ago
Blah. You're not listening. Nobody's saying it is scientific empiricism leads to any evil. What I have said, and what Ben is saying, is that when an ideology is coupled with science, the IDEOLOGY is that much more convincing. If we want to play simplistic history here, we can bring up the atheism of communism, which was put there explicitly to lend a materialistic credibility to that political ideology. It's an ABUSE of science.
azrienoch 3 years ago
It's not that I'm not listening, Az. It's that I can't hear anything in your argument as it relates to what Dawkins is saying. I cannot hear an ideology coming from Dawkins. I guess I must be too dumb to understand. How embarrassing for me.
philhellenes 3 years ago
paraphrasing: religion is a virus that we have a moral obligation to eradicate. Religious conviction is a product of ignorance or stupidity and produces uniformly immoral influences. There ya go: two ideological propositions fundamental to his position.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
You once said (while speaking of What the Bleep) that the thing about bullshit is that it's mixed with just enough true stuff. Imagine that all empirical claims an ideology makes are scientific, but the thing about this ideology is that it has a code of ethics, ethics not being scientific, tagged onto it. The claim then goes: to follow the ideology is to be scientific, which lends credibility to the code of ethics.
azrienoch 3 years ago
To have a mission, to have intent, while doing science is to bring an ideology (however unsaid) to science. The science isn't ideological, the person is. Some people can admit and make sure that the science and their ideology are not confused. Dawkins is not one of those people.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Education becomes propaganda when you're taught certain things that lead you to construct and conclude an ideology. Imagine a child who's only told of the good things of the world; they'd probably think the world is a rather good place. You've seen him list the wars he's linked to religion, you've seen him list the things gone wrong with the world "at the hands of religion," and you DON'T call that propaganda?
azrienoch 3 years ago
How many people have actually bothered to study the Crusades, rather than taking it at face value that they are as they are usually presented? Most of his examples are far less ambiguous: religious conflict in Ireland is inseparable from nationalistic concerns, the Holocaust TARGETED religious and ethnic groups {among others, often overlooked} but did not draw from religious rhetoric for its propaganda, etc, etc.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
He's too smart to not know what he's doing: playing in the ambiguities of "historical cause" {another area where empiricistic impulses are best suppressed} to gain another leg of support. As a biologist he recognizes that his "viral" claims SHOULD be morally neutral, but relies on the layman connotations to play the crowd. He is far too intelligent to be perpetuating these mistakes earnestly. It seems far more likely that he does so because they are "good copy".
TheCarruths 3 years ago
"How many people have actually bothered to study the Crusades, rather than taking it at face value that they are as they are usually presented?"
You have hit upon the great secret: There are secular myths which are important to secularism as an ideology as are religious myths to their faiths. Galileo before the inquisition as it's regularly presented is a secularist myth. The Crusades as presented are a secularist myth. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the same.
rebyoshi 3 years ago
Empiricism is a way of accessing factuality and often measuring it. If you think measuring and testing accuracy is an ideological position then I, obviously disagree.
Noah's Ark is bull, ergo it has NO role to play in assessing the intentionality or otherwise of the cosmos. It is moot. Any bridge to any other point by any side is sheared by the ark's falsehood. If someone says it happened I or anyone else has good reason (truth) for saying, "no".
philhellenes 3 years ago
"Any bridge to any other point by any side is sheared by the ark's falsehood."
And that notion, unsupportable by the means the preceding propose for determining truth value, is exactly the problem.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
The truth has more value than falsehood.
Although I know you can dispute and debate the meaning of "truth" and "value" and "falsehood" forever. And your thinking will be far more detailed than mine. But I do not see it as efficient when dealing with an imminent problem. You may argue there is no problem. That seems to be your position.
philhellenes 3 years ago
What's the indication that I don't see a problem? I'm saying that an equally reactionary, pejorative solution is no solution at all, only an escalation.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Dawkins, I believe, proposes education as a solution. If you do not see education as an "escalation", then you, Dawkins and myself are in accord.
philhellenes 3 years ago
For crying out loud... have you EVER seen him speak? The rhetoric flies fast and reckless, facts are replaced with dogma, et al. The slogan of "theism as a mind disorder", absurd historical propositions {stating that conflict in Ireland is primarily religious requires almost intentional ignorance}, and the snarling demands of superiority have no educational value. Education is vital but if these are the means by which it is defended, it is already lost.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
philhellenes: its great to see that im not the only one fighting the strawman that azrienoch introduced ;)
kurtilein3 3 years ago
Apparently Dawkins is he's trying to break down a wall and the philosophers rather like some of the bricks in the wall, little realizing (or accepting) that the bricks themselves are not destroyed and may be used in a more solid structure later on. For now, all I see is a wall. I am prepared to debate many things, but not which hammer to use. The philosophers can save the worthwhile bricks and design the next structure. If the philosophers can live ethically without religion, so can we all.
philhellenes 3 years ago
an interesting analogy :)
at least some philosophers are on our side, daniel dennett for example.
but recently i see ``philosophers´´ using strawmans and spreading misconceptions with the aim of protecting the wall as a whole.
kurtilein3 3 years ago
If at first you don't succeed, stop trying and congratulate yourself on victory?
TheCarruths 3 years ago
I'm so GLAD you're back! However, I'm a bit confused by your example of corrective vs punitive systems. The corrective in your example seems more like classical behaviorism, rather than a direct correlative to Dawkins' views. Yes, Dawkins' view of genetic determinism has a wide and fashionable appear. AND I think that that appeal results from a profound misunderstanding, but I don't think it can be directly applied to your example. The problem is in gene's context not to this application.
2bsirius 3 years ago
The genetic component only compounds the problem. Punitive action becomes nonsensical, arbitrary, and corrective action is faced with an unsolvable problem. I didn't want to drop the "eugenics" bomb in the vid {contentious enough}, but....
TheCarruths 3 years ago
I just don't see this argument the same way. I'm NO fan of Dawkins, but I think there is ABSOLUTELY no connect between Dawkins and anything that has the slightest hint of eugenics. My problem with Dawkins is that he fails to keep up with some of the amazing advances in biochemistry and molecular biology. Specifically, he refuses to address advances in epigenetic and systems biology, and this leads him to outdated positions on genetic determinism...
2bsirius 3 years ago
Thank you for this, Ben. Very enlightening!
AwokenSpirit 3 years ago
I like this dialogue that's going on about science's place in ethics.
But, if not by science, how can we learn that religions are myth? So while science may not tell us what are moral
chessmonk 3 years ago
The word "myth" has also taken on moral connotations. Consider the truth value difference in the words "myth" and "story".
TheCarruths 3 years ago
I like this dialogue that's going on about science's place in ethics.
But, if not by science, how can we learn that religions are myth? So while science may not tell us what are morals 'should' be based on, it can at least show us that our morals may be based on dogmas that aren't really true.
Thus it opens the door for further discussion and scrutiny of our ethics.
Moreover, once an ethical goal/framework is chosen, isn't science able to explore better processes to achieve said goal/fr.wrk?
chessmonk 3 years ago
Has Dawkins attempted to derive ethics from science? Where do you imagine he's said as much?
Az seemed unable to substantiate this claim. Perhaps you can.
bitbutter 3 years ago
The moment he prescribes courses of action on moral grounds based on scientific authority, he has done so. Drawing from "scientific" claims regarding the nature of religion and its influence on human history is an appeal to this authority. Assessing these elements on moral grounds, relying on that authority, creates exactly that: ethics from "science". Note the quotation marks.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
"he moment he prescribes courses of action on moral grounds based on scientific authority, he has done so."
I'm sure he presents the insights of science with the aim of informing moral decisions. Nowhere though, to my knowledge, has he tried to tell us though how we should decide what is right and wrong. He sees ethics as a discussion separate to science.
bitbutter 3 years ago
The quote marks are significant. What i still think needs to be done is to show that he does consider whichever claims you're thinking of to have scientific support.
As well as a scientist he is an educator and a polemicist. His critics assume he has the roles confused, but i see no evidence that he does.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Simple question: has Dawkins ever evaluated religious claims according to scientific criteria?
TheCarruths 3 years ago
He's noted that there is no credible scientific data supporting religious claims. So as far as it is possible to do so, imo, yes.
But i'm a little suspicious of where you're going with this: Books like TGD are not works of science, nor is anyone pretending that they are.
bitbutter 3 years ago 4
Omg. Are you REFUSING my arguments now?
azrienoch 3 years ago
hi. I don't see how you showed the Dawkins derives ethics from science, or even tries to. Apologies if i've misunderstood somewhere along the way.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Restating that it hasn't been stated doesn't revoke the statement, speaking of which... the statement stands.
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Do you guys get some special bulk price on straw if you all chip in together or something?
Watch my video response to Az if you don't believe me. Dawkins has said time and time again things like, reason doesn't give us morals but they should be defensible by reason.
Your complaint is valid, there are people that think like you claim they do, but they are few and far between and definitely do not include Dawkins as part of that group nor any self-respecting disbeliever of objective morality.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago