How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I always knew religious zealotry existed but never gave it much thought. I found it disturbing that people could be driven to commit suicide for their beliefs but, at the same time, regarded it as a very rare and extreme occurrence. I looked upon it as an extreme aberration of religion perpetuated by a few evil individuals and nothing more. If I had only taken a moment or two to give the subject deeper though I would have realized that, like all illness, religious extremism is just the festering symptom of a much larger problem.

When I saw the headlines about disclaimer stickers being placed on science textbooks decrying evolution I simply thought that some overzealous people, who didn’t understand the theory (or even what a theory is), wanted to approach the subject cautiously since they didn’t know how solid it was as a science. I understood that sometimes science is counterintuitive to what we would consider common sense. After all, a cursory glance at our past reveals that the simple notion of our planet circling the Sun caused great controversy in its time. I fully understood that as man watched the sun move across the sky he felt no forces of motion acting upon him. It must have been silly to think that we were the ones moving. Besides, the holy Bible said that we were the center of the universe. Saying otherwise was not only nonsensical it was blasphemy.

I decided to do my part by helping educate theists about the Theory of Evolution. I was convinced that, once they understood what a scientific theory was and how sound the Theory of Evolution is, unfounded belief would once again give way to reason. How naïve I was.

Once involved in the debate I began to realize that, while it was true that those in opposition to the Theory of Evolution didn’t understand what a scientific theory was let alone understand the Theory of Evolution, these people didn’t want to know. Their stance on the subject wasn’t based on reason. Because of this, no amount of reasoning could dissuade them from their belief. In fact, it seemed that the sole purpose of their involvement was to evangelize in the hopes to bolster their ranks. They called themselves soldiers of God™ and gleefully donned armor of God™ while perpetuating age old scare tactics about lakes of fire and promises of eternal bliss. This wasn’t a scientific debate at all. This was a clash of ideologies. I was witnessing the latent death throws of those who opposed the age of reason in favor of superstition.

While participating in the “debate” my eyes opened to the deeper problem of the erosion of the separation of church and state. All of a sudden there was controversy about public courthouses displaying the Ten Commandments, schools placing disclaimer stickers on science books, God™ inserted into the pledge of allegiance, God™ printed on national currency, and a push for Intelligent Design to be included in the public school curriculum. Were there really enough religious zealots to make inroads toward a theocracy here in the United States of America?

One thing is for sure. While I don’t yet have the answers to all of my questions, I am now certain that this is not a legitimate debate about the science of the Theory of Evolution but a throwback to the dark ages. What we are seeing here is a world power reluctant to loose any more mindshare (or tithing) to the enlightenment of the age of reason. Like the heliocentric solar system the real truth will prevail and creationism will be relegated to antiquity. My only hope now is that those seeking power by controlling the minds of its “soldiers” through fear and inculcation will one day be a thing of the past too.

I am now proud to call myself an atheist and freethinker. My mind is my own, not a tool for your antiquated power struggle.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

If your open minded enough I'll throw out a different perspective. I wont speak for religion because I don't go in for it but I go on philosophy rather than science as the core reason for being (for moral reasons and such).

My problem with evolution isn't that it doesn't make sense scientifically although there are some aspects about life science knows almost nothing about. It's that accepting science as the reason for everything doesn't deal with moral questions.

If you don't care about moral questions then fine this isn't even worth thinking about.

 

[Opcode42]

Why do you assume there is a "moral reason" for humanity or even the universe to exist?

Can you not consider the possibility that there is NO reason for either?


To AnEmpiricalAgnostic, well put. I agree that what we are seeing today are indeed the death throes of an antiquated system of superstition and population control. I just worry that our lack of well funded educational systems are enabling them to gain ground and recover from this instead of slipping into the past.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

If your open minded enough I'll throw out a different perspective. I wont speak for religion because I don't go in for it but I go on philosophy rather than science as the core reason for being (for moral reasons and such).

I consider myself open minded within reason. I just won’t open my mind so far as to let my brains fall out. I don’t consider science as a reason for being. Science is a way to understand how (not why). It has nothing to do with morality at all. Why we are here and morality are separate subjects entirely to me and should never be conflated with science.

My problem with evolution isn't that it doesn't make sense scientifically.

If you are open minded enough and willing to learn I will take time to show you that the TofE does indeed make sense scientifically and has nothing to do with morality.

If you don't care about moral questions then fine this isn't even worth thinking about.

I do care about morality. I just believe it to be a separate subject from science and even religion. Moral atrocities have been committed via both.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Can you not consider the possibility that there is NO reason for either?

Absolutely. I'm very open minded and I've considered so many beliefs religions philosophies and ideas and science.

This is my real problem with science. It all started at the big bang, and I have talked to people about what was before the big bang, or just that concept of there must have been something before it. They can throw alot of big words at you but I cannot understand the concept of the big bang being the origion of existence.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

That's cool empirical, but what about the moral questions of why there was inevitable suffering for ... 4 billion years? Or since the point at which animals developed sentience there has been inevitable suffering. That's a moral question, and it comes from evolution.

 

[Chalnoth]

It's that accepting science as the reason for everything doesn't deal with moral questions.

Science has quite a lot to say about moral questions. Take homosexuality: science has shown us that there is a significant biological component to homosexuality, thus making the moral arguments against homosexuality seem hollow.

 

[Opcode42]

Why is that a moral question? Morality implies the ability to judge right and wrong. It implies there being someone there to do the judging.

If there was suffering in the last 13.5 billion years of the universe, it can be neither moral or immoral until intelligent, sentient, communicative life arrives to judge it.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

That's cool empirical, but what about the moral questions of why there was inevitable suffering for ... 4 billion years? Or since the point at which animals developed sentience there has been inevitable suffering. That's a moral question, and it comes from evolution.

I’m not sure this is a moral question at all. How do you define suffering? Just because we have a nervous system capable of feeling pain doesn’t raise morality concerns. We learn a lot of things through positive and negative reinforcement. Suffering is merely a negative stimulus that should motivate an individual to make changes. If you are talking about individuals that use suffering as a tool for control then you have a moral topic on your hands. That doesn’t come from evolution though.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Science has quite a lot to say about moral questions. Take homosexuality: science has shown us that there is a significant biological component to homosexuality, thus making the moral arguments against homosexuality seem hollow.

Interesting point. It helps underscore the fact that morality itself is ambiguous. Morality is a mere product of consensus among groups of like minded individuals. Morality is subjective and varies from group to group, person to person. It has nothing to do with science itself. (Unless you delve into psychology I suppose)

 

[mnbvcxz87]

'Why is that a moral question? Morality implies the ability to judge right and wrong. It implies there being someone there to do the judging.

If there was suffering in the last 13.5 billion years of the universe, it can be neither moral or immoral until intelligent, sentient, communicative life arrives to judge it.'

I appreciate that but if you take it that existense isn't just as perceived through the invididual mind, it exists on a all emcopassing scale with individual perception, then even though animals fought for billions of years with no morals involved, the fact that the inevitable suffering took place is a moral question. Does that make sense?

Also to empirical ^

Like if I threw a couple hungry dogs in a pit, they would inevitably fight. Although there was no morality involved between the two dogs, the fact that it took place under the creation of some power throws out a moral dilemma.

 

[Opcode42]

Interesting point. It helps underscore the fact that morality itself is ambiguous. Morality is a mere product of consensus among groups of like minded individuals. Morality is subjective and varies from group to group, person to person. It has nothing to do with science itself. (Unless you delve into psychology I suppose)

Science therefore is neither moral or immoral. It is how science is used that can be judged to be immoral or moral. And even then, it remains a subjective judgement. There is no means to judge an absolute morality. Even adding a diety into the mix only pushes the subjective judgement out to a more knowledgeable being.

 

[Opcode42]

No, it doesn't make much sense, as even if you assume your beliefs, it still requires some method and some being to judge wether it was moral or immoral. Above and beyond that, how can the actions of something that is not concious of what we define as right and wrong be capable of moral or immoral actions?

And further,along with my above post,how do you define morality? Once you do, it is still subjective based upon your own ideas of right and wrong.

Right and wrong, moral and immoral are not qualities of the universe. They are results of emotions in self aware intelligent beings. We empathize with others, and therefore feel bad when we see others in pain. We thus judge whatever caused the pain to be immoral. However, we only do this when the pain was caused by another self aware being.

A child touches a hot stove and crys out in pain. Is this an immoral action on the part of the stove?

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Ok to put it in a different way. If you take that pain is bad, then if a power created the universe, why was there inevitable pain for billions of years?

We're just getting into semantics...

 

[Chalnoth]

Pain is not bad. Pain shows us when we are doing something damaging to us. Pain is a teacher.

 

[Opcode42]

We're just getting into semantics...

Not at all. it is the core problem I and apparently other see in your views. Morality is a subjective judgement. Yet you are trying to enforce morality as an absolute on the entire universe and give the universe the concious will to drive it. You are in effect statsing that the universe deliberately, and with forethought, caused all living beings to suffer.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

'Why is that a moral question? Morality implies the ability to judge right and wrong. It implies there being someone there to do the judging.

Morality is subjective. Let me give you an example. There were (I’m not sure if they still exist) tribes that would practice cannibalism by eating the bodies of their diseased. While you most likely find this morally repugnant the tribe though the idea of burying a loved one only to have the worms eat them was morally repugnant. To them eating them was an act of love.

There is no universal moral code. There are moral codes that have proven useful to the creation of civilized society over the ages and have been adopted almost universally. But that doesn’t mean these ideas had to come from some supernatural entity. They are just good ideas that help society flourish.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

'Pain is not bad. Pain shows us when we are doing something damaging to us. Pain is a teacher.'

Yes but a bat being eaten alive by a hawk or a rat being digested alive by a snake is bad, and that is suffering. Pain can deter you from doing something harmful, but pain IS bad.

Opcode I don't see it as subjective. I see better and worse moralities, but the question still is that if you take that a power...a god created the universe, why was there billions of years of suffering and pain? That's a question I've never seen answered by science or any religion or any philosophy ever.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Empiric we'll have to agree to disagree, to me the pinnacle of morality is altruism. And someone whose morality allows them to steal or even kill to make their way, even though acceptable to them, has a lower morality.

 

[Opcode42]

Well it cannot be answered by science, as science does not deal with morality, and cannot deal with supernatural entities such as god.

As to religion, this is one of the many questions you will often hear from Atheists that was involved in their leaving their former faiths.

You are right, the concept of a benevolent all knowing diety is NOT compatible with a universe fillled with suffering such as ours is.

But despite all this morality IS subjective. It requries thought in order to even exist. Thought implies a mind, which impies an ability to perceive and think about the universe. Such perception will always be flavored by the history of such a mind, which in turn makes any morality designed by such a mind subjective. Yes this even applies ot dieties, as since even dieties must come from somewhere(else why does the universe need a diety), they must also have limits, thus subjective morality.

(the above assumes the existence of dieties for the sake of argument.)