Reply to 2bsirius

[Rayxl1]

An interesting video. As a christian I'm irritated by the constant arguments between the people who belive in the Adam and Eve story and those who believe in evolution. I've found if you have a proper understanding of both accounts there is no contradiction between the two. It's just a matter of using science to understand one and theology the understand the other.

[CrystalSkyWarrior]

Extremely cool!!!

[solarcradle]

Nice video!

Philosophy and metaphysics are still very active in the scientific world. Enjoy the dogma! :D

[ProsperiaFan]

Well said, Give me the variable of......(enter your own made up value) Anything that we cannot measure or don't even have a name for the units of Unknown.

[brokennarcissist]

Well Weaseldog2001, I've grown tired of this seemly infinite regress, we could exchange another 40 posts but I fail to see the point.

If it interests you at all I would recommend reading Foucault, Nietzsche and Rorty on the matters of ideology, the limits of reason and identity. Then reflect on supposed virtues of modernity.

[2bsirius]

What a wonderful surprise to see you again! Yes, I take your point about the scientific method...By coincidence I've been researching this very debate recently...I'm going to make a video about it...

BUT YES EXACTLY...Science answers 'how questions,' not 'why questions'....The only point of contention might be your point that the current thinking is dogma...I've just finished the book your mention..."Einstein's Mistakes" and I'm going to use it in my video about this. Interesting points. Thanks

[yeahwotevaman]

Great points!

[brokennarcissist]

Its a good rule of thumb to be suspicious of people who talk about Universal Values. Those who wish to hijack the subjectivity of others under a mistakenly objective percpetion aren't in a position to make an appeal to freedom. Neo futurists' idea of progress is unconscious. Their fine running a death camp or a utopia so long as the trains run on time.

Science does well to evaluate its own objects, it does not however tell us how to live our lives.

[Weaseldog2001]

You paint with such a broad brush, that your argument fails. Or, at least it's nonsensical.

Maybe we shoudl be suspicious of people who use money, because money has been used to finance murder...

I would argue that it depends on what universal values are under discussion.

[brokennarcissist]

You can't make sense of what I posted, then declare it a failure?

Throwing out a couple of generalizations is an unspired reponse seeing how you haven't bothered to put what I posted in context.

It was a criticism of modernism that new atheists (that preach scientific dogma, the subject of the video) use to co-opt langague (i.e faith, progress, truth etc...) to articulate humanity 'proper'.

How about we focus on the dogma under discussion before pulling generalizations out of thin air.

[Weaseldog2001]

I watched the video again.

I still don't see the connection between atheism, humanism, universal values, Mussolini's trains, Hitler's death camps and Eugenics and defined under Catholicism and a military state.

[brokennarcissist]

Just to be clear I don't pretend to speak for dndn1011

I'm not criticizing atheism, I'm criticizing new/dogmatic atheism.

The video is criticizing treating science as a dogma. Ask yourself who does that? New atheists (i.e. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) that priviledge 'scientific discourse' over all other discourses qua subject matter.

If you can't see the parallels between modernity and objectification of the automous subject, I recommend this video

watch?v=tpa-NF7LXrw&feature=ch­annel_page

[Weaseldog2001]

I watched it. I don't see how it's relevant.

Dawkins and Hitchens do both believe that there is nothing for the consciousness after death, citing lack of evidence. That's the only dogmatic aspect of their beliefs I am aware of.

If you have a video of them praising genocide, or preaching Nazi eugenics, pass it on.

The Nazis weren't scientists anymore than you can argue that loyal party supporters in the US are scientists.

Arguments given in the video lack a logical basis.

[Weaseldog2001]

I'm afraid that all you've done is demonstrate that you have a dogmatic prejudice, driving your thinking.

I see clear parallels between your argument against humanists and the Nazi eugenics argument against what they referred to as subhuiman races. Though at least you aren't saying they need to be removed from society.

[brokennarcissist]

Are you kidding me? Your supposed 'logic' is elementary at best. Enlightment me on my 'dogmatic prejudice', do the work of fleshing out your argument. Until then, I can't really take seriously the phantom parallels you wish to impose as a bandaid for self indulgent 'reasoning'.

BTW, who is that I called subhuman?

[brokennarcissist]

Its what was did in the name of progress. The motivation being that science and technology make the world better. Modernist progress is unconsious, that is to say, its not critical of itself.

Funny you omit Harris who endorses nuclear strikes against the 'Ismalic world'. Hitchens also preaches the virtues of a certian illegal war in the Middle East.

However its not their particular views that interest me, its the vocabularies of identity they wish to deny (i.e. religious ones)

[Weaseldog2001]

I have run accross plenty of people who's religion is science. They have faith in it, yet they don't understand it. These are the folks I'd accuse of being guilty of treating science as dogma.

Some people are psychopaths, I believe that is a different argument than whether they are dogmatic about science.

If they undertsnad the science and can prove what they believe, it isn't faith. It isn't dogma.

[Weaseldog2001]

Do you believe that every athiest treats science as dogma?

[brokennarcissist]

Actually I'm an atheist, so obviously I don't believe that every atheist treats science as a dogma. I wouldn't make such an absolute claim.

[brokennarcissist]

I can't speak about people you've met who call science their religion though it strikes me as ridiculous. I'm not interested in their particular views.

Some people are psychopahs despite their faith. What Dawkins suggests in the God Delusion is that religious identity is a pathology. To justify this he applies the scietific method to a text, a non scietific object (hackish)

There is no burden of evidence required for an existential commitment (i.e. faith). It is a matter of will not evidence.

[Weaseldog2001]

It's my experience here in Texas, that Christians are all racists and hate black people. I attended to a very racist church as a child, and got kicked out, because scientificially I couldn't accept that black people aren't monkeys.

Was it my dogma that kept me from hating black people, even though my church encouraged this?

[brokennarcissist]

I'm sure there are plenty of black Christians in Texas. I've never met a Christian remotely that ignorant. Could it possibility have more to do with the cultural climate of Texas rather than religion?

When did I accuse you of dogmatic thinking. Again enlighten me. I've read over my posts and its not clear that I have made any significant assumptions about you.

[Weaseldog2001]

I was trying to get an understandign of your definition of dogma or dogmatic.

You aren't using the dictionary defintions.

You mayt it clear that racism and genocide are components of your definition of dogma. I find that difficult to understand.

You do understand that Dawkins is attacking Creationism, a discipline that Fundamentalist Christians regard as a legitimate science. They argue that there is a scientific basis for God. That reality proves that God exists.

[brokennarcissist]

Creationism is an example of the darkside of religion. What makes Creationism so clearly ridiculous is that it attempts to treat Bible as a scientific object (do you see how new atheism and religious fundamentalists are two sides of the same coin?). That is, it tries to give an factual account which is disturbing. Dawkins mistakenly reduces all other accounts religions to this interpretation.

You do realize that Dawkin's scope reaches much further than fundamentalists.

(cont)

[brokennarcissist]

Words don't have static or singular meanings. So if you'd like to put forth the dictionary definition go ahead. I'm sure the dictionary's definition will have something to do with the following of an authoratative narrative. This could be either scientific, religious or nationalist etc...

On matters of metaphysics there is no authority as such an inquiry is beyond our grasp. Though metaphysics isn't what interests me about these exchanges. Identity politics on the hand I find quite compelling

[Weaseldog2001]

If you're going to make up new meanings for words, then pretend that everyone knows these alternate meanings, without you explaining them, you are going to find yourself in many confusing arguments.

Until I discovered that your definition of dogma is unique. I had no clue what you were trying to argue. It didn't make any sense.

Now I can't be sure that I can understand anything that you argue. How do I know if your words mean what I think they mean?

[brokennarcissist]

I'm not making up new meanings of words nor have I said that racism (which you introduced to this exchanged btw) or genocide are essential to dogmas. Dogmatic thinking is simply being uncritical to an authority.

Sign and signified never exist in a unified or singular relationship. Only a literalist would suggest otherwise.

Your level of reading comphrension has been suspect since your original post, thats hardly a failing my part. That said, I'm not surprised you're struggling.

[Weaseldog2001]

Perhaps if you published your private dictionary of alternate secret meanings of words, as defined by you, my reading comprehension of your words will improve.

When you linked a video talking about the holocaust and talked about nuking Palestine, you were probably discussing bunnies and flowers. I misunderstood your intent and thought you were covering genocide, eugenics and racism.

But then, how can I know that your words this time, follow Websters?

[brokennarcissist]

Perhaps if you were literate in the basic tenants of philosophy you'd be capable of engaging discourse with others without resorting to childish oversimplifications in failing attempt to cover up your own short comings.

The video was criticism of modernism not just about the holocaust. He was using the holocaust to illustrate a point.

I didn't say a thing about Palestine.

If you need literal meaning to be immediately available to you, then I can see how Dawkins is appealing author for you.

[Weaseldog2001]

Thank you, but clearly I'm too ignorant to understand you.

[brokennarcissist]

Remind me which one of us began declaring the other's argument to failure.

You've made no effort to understand what I've posted and have constantly been on the attack. Far be it for me to defend myself. There is a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance.

[Weaseldog2001]

I don't understand your argument.

You win.

[brokennarcissist]

I didn't treat this as debate.

[Weaseldog2001]

Let's retry with the basics.

Do you consider science to essentially be dogma?

If so, why?

And what definition of dogma are you using?

I keep getting the impression from your arguments that this is the first step in your thesis. I don't agree.

[Weaseldog2001]

And you're right, I've had no extensive education in philosophy.

My education has been in the sciences, math and logic. I've been writing software since I was 15, back in 1978.

It seems to me that a logical argument could be presented as to whether Dawkins is dogmatic about science, without reaching our to philosophy.

The first step is to determine whether the practice of science is by nature, dogmatic, or is there a rational and logical underpinning to the practice.

[Weaseldog2001]

If we agree that science is not essentially a dogmatic discipline, then next we must try to identify ways in which Dawkins uses science dogmatically, ie: without understanding or reason.

I think this is a tough case to prove.

The arguments about religion don't seem to have any bearing on this central point that we have been discussing. Though you've made it clear that you don't like his attacks on religion.

[brokennarcissist]

I take no issue with science. I did say science does well to evaluate its own objects and I respect Dawkins as a biologist. What I find disturbing is that he's stepped out of the realm of science and now is engaging philosophy and doing so poorly.

You can't treat a text (i.e. the Koran or the Bible) as an object of science. Doing so makes for unsophisticated surface readings. Priviledge science over all discourse is also a veiled attack on the humanities as a whole.

[brokennarcissist]

Once one accepts science as a superior discourse, then one may become a slave to it and dismiss other perspectives. For intance, postmodernism is dismissed by new atheistists as reletavism where actually a postmodern perspective simply allows for any perspective to be put on the table. So, one may choose to engage religious vocabularies if they find meaning in doing so. There isn't an objective way to determining meaning, to suggest there is, is to deny another's autonomy.

[Weaseldog2001]

Once again the Creationists are driving this point. They are arguing that Creationism is science. Already Creationism under the guise of 'Intelligent Design' is being taught in American Schools as a science that is equivalent if not superior to evolution as a universal truth.

Dawkins has been relentless in his fight against such charlatans.

It's my opinion that religion is a poor engagement of philosophy.

I fail to see your conflict between Reason, Philosophy and the Humanities.

[Weaseldog2001]

It seems to me that you are confusing the tool with the user.

People have used hammers, to kill people. Hammers have never used people, to kill people.

I don't find that all beliefs are valid, or meaningful in all contexts. Do you believe that in the end of days that a great wolf will be set loose to feed on men, while resurrected heroes, Gods and giants destroy the Earth in an epic war? Do you believe that this belief is valid in discussions of science?

[Weaseldog2001]

I see a danger in ignorantly misusing pseudoscience in public policy, but we've seen the same danger in using religion.

I've never heard Dawkins say anything that is anti-humanitarian. Have you?

[brokennarcissist]

I agree that there is a danger in teaching intelligent design. The issue is teaching religion in science classes. I agree that shouldn't be done.

Yes, Dawkins treats religion as a pathology. Treating people who are sane as mentally disturbed or poisioned isn't my idea of progressive and the issue doesn't stop at religion. For instance, there are plenty of feminists on youtube that subjected to harassment under the 'justification' of biological determinsts. Dawkins audience at play.

[Weaseldog2001]

Is science the cause of this, or the tool?

[brokennarcissist]

I'll say this for the third time, I haven't take issue with science. Treating science as a dogma is misguided. The hammer is fine, I never suggested otherwise.

[Weaseldog2001]

Ok, that's settled then.

[Weaseldog2001]

Your point about Dawkins seeing religion as a pathology is well taken.

We haven't evolved far out of the trees. Though we like to think that we're something special and we invent Gods who's purpose is to make us the center of creation, we're still irrational animals at our core.

We are wired for differing degrees of rationality.

Whether someone is considered a nutcase for believing that invisible creatures guide their destiny, is determined by how many people share that belief.

[Weaseldog2001]

Dawkins makes the argument that it doesn't matter how many people share a delusion, it is still a delusion. Millions of people believe that a fat man flies a sleigh around the world every Christmas. That's a relatively harmless delusion, if that person eventually grows out of it.

If a person believes that God wants them to rid the world of people that worship differently, and that view is shared by many others, is it a delusion, or can it be considered a pathology?

[Weaseldog2001]

Consider that if one person believes such things, we may well institutionalize them.

[brokennarcissist]

'Consider that if one person believes such things, we may well institutionalize them.'

Nope, I'm find it hard to believe that you'd believe this statement. Greater men that you or I have believed in God.

[Weaseldog2001]

You miss the point.

If one man believes that there are invisible pixies everywhere, guiding him through life and talks about this often, we'd think him a loon.

If we know that there is a community of people that believe this, then we respect their beliefs. Even though that belief may have started with one looney.

The belief becomes respectable when a lot of people share the delusion.

I don't care that supersized men believed in God.

"What do you care what other people think?" - R. Feynman

[brokennarcissist]

I've missed the point? Whats the rent like for a glass house?

God isn't a magical pixie. Spiderman isn't Sisypheaus. Not all myths are equal. Not all fiction is equal. Relgious texts are philosphy, history and myth interwooven, they're edifying texts despite one's opinion on them.

Its not a matter of gaining respect through consensus reality or pop culture. For intance, could you perhaps tell me why the God Delusion is not taken seriously in high culture?

Its not a particular compelling book

[Weaseldog2001]

Greater men than you and I burned witches at the stake.

That doesn't mean that you or I should respect their beliefs, just because they were wealthy and had the authority of kings.

[brokennarcissist]

'Greater men than you and I burned witches at the stake.'

Nah, I consider myself morally better than a murderer and still a lesser man than I say Aquinas. I don't subscribe to ridiculous over simplifaction on the characters of others based on how they engage of metaphyic. That doesn't excuse murder. Again the distinction needs to be made between actions and beliefs.

[Weaseldog2001]

I don;t know you well enough to know how you define a 'Great Man'.

I've had role models in my life, but no heroes. I don't see anyone as a 'Great Man'. All I know is the various definitions that society provides.

[brokennarcissist]

I don't see how asking a question of how religion can be co-opted to convince someone to 'get rid of someone esle' as a fair question. Any perspective can be co-opted by another with malicious intent, that isn't exclusive to religion. The argument that religion can lead to undesirable ends isn't suffiencient to deny religion. For instance, a suicide bomber isn't a criminal because he may be muslims, he's a criminal for being a suicide bomber. That is the rational distinction to be made.

[Weaseldog2001]

Isn't that the argument I made about science?

I'll make the same one about religion. but what of religions in which a central part of their teaching is that God sees them as his chosen people and he wants them to commit genocide against unbelievers and steal their land? For instance the Book of Genesis.

[brokennarcissist]

There are numerous interpretations between religions, within religions and outside of religion of the book of Genesis. I wouldn't reduce it to a parable about genocide.

Again (is it me or is this word becoming my catchphase?) the issue is dogma. Both religion and secular humanism are herd moralities (if you don't recognize this term wiki Nietzsche). Both can be dogmatically expressed. It isn't an either or. I've pointed to new atheism as an example of a dogmatic expression.

[Weaseldog2001]

The Book of Genesis contains an explicit story of God commanding the jews to commit genocide against the Philistines.

Maybe the story is a parable. But the parable revolves around God ordering the jews to commit genocide.

It is very clear. There is no ambiguity. Have you read it?

[Weaseldog2001]

All things can be dogmatically expressed.

For instance, the stories of genocide in the Bible are dogmatically expressed as parables that mean something else, when the wording is otherwise direct and clear.

[brokennarcissist]

Language represents a radical emergence from biological determination. Its not a matter of how we're wired, its a matter how we define ourselves and what we engage our will towards. Reducing God or what God is represents to an invisible man in the sky isn't a juvenile over simplicafion.

[Weaseldog2001]

Language isn't thinking. We define ourselves by what we, not by what we say we are.

Language doesn't overcome our basic wiring. We are a mix of instinctive and learned behaviors. Both play a part. But the basic wiring is the foundation for our limitations and strengths.

The invisible man in the sky is just a way to give the overlord, super powers, to keep us in line. Don't cause trouble. God is watching you.

I was taught this in Sunday School.

[brokennarcissist]

'Language isn't thinking. We define ourselves by what we, not by what we say we are.'

By what we are? Nope, we're all in midst of articulating vocabularies of ourselves. Its an incredibly weak position to reduce human subjectivity to instintual behavoir. I don't really care to breakdown arguments against biological determinism, you research that on your own. To say the least, instintual behavoir doesn't really do much to describe the dynamics of life.

[Weaseldog2001]

As you disagree with me that nature and nurture play strong roles, you're arguing the blank slate theory.

I'm not going to go research a bunch of junk science that argues that there is no biological basis for personality, emotion, etc... That's pure bunk. There is a large body of evidence proving that genetics and epigenetics plays a huge role in behavior and cognitive function.

[brokennarcissist]

I never argued the blank slate theory. Pinning you're interpretations of what I posted on me is another example of what a joy it is to talk to you. I'm have no interest in further exploring straw men.

[Weaseldog2001]

I'm trying to understand your argument that language makes us what we are, and how I am wrong in arguing that nature and nurter both play strong roles.

You were very clear in arguing that I am wrong about nature and nurture making us what we are.

If you take out Nature, I thought you were clear about that, then all that is left is the blank slate theory.

[Weaseldog2001]

Yet you disagree with this statement, "We are a mix of instinctive and learned behaviors. Both play a part."

[Weaseldog2001]

How do you think we evolved to use language, if genetics doesn't play a role in how we think?

[Weaseldog2001]

"Its an incredibly weak position to reduce human subjectivity to instintual behavoir."

I never argued that. And I assume you were not making a straw man argument. That you were clarifying your disagreement with my comments.

But you were, weren't you? You were making a straw man argument here, by inventing a position I did not take and attributing it to me.

i thought you were clarifying what you believe.

[brokennarcissist]

Obviously I don't believe that, and the vast majority of religious people do not seriously believe that either. Again, its problematic to make literal readings of the Bible. Only a fundamentalist would do so. That is a dogmatic reading and one I wouldn't respect. I don't need scientific evidence to understand that literal reading are misguided.

Explain to me further what you're trying to imply with the hammer analogy.

[brokennarcissist]

Again, I've been crtical of unversal truth. I recognize creationist perspective to be ridiculous. Again, I'd like to point to the fact that Dawkin's scope if much larger than creationists.

The notion of new atheisism is superior to all other perspectives as its scientific and properly rational is the issue at hand. For instance, I'm taking with it from a postmodern perspective.

Your opinion doesn't interest me. There is a robust history of religious philosophy which is a legitimate discpline.

[Weaseldog2001]

"Your opinion doesn't interest me. There is a robust history of religious philosophy which is a legitimate discpline."

People do get grants to study such things.

And I thank you for your time.

[brokennarcissist]

'I fail to see your conflict between Reason, Philosophy and the Humanities.'

You need to flesh this out before I can respond. How is it that you see me as trying to show a conflict betwee, reason and philosophy/humanties? I don't see a conflict between them.

[Weaseldog2001]

This has neither been fun or instructive.

I can see now that you're just trolling.

Take care.

[brokennarcissist]

I can assure you I'm not trolling, but you push me to a point where I grew tired hitting head against the wall.