How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

[Opcode42]

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.

Again showing why morality is subjective. If we cannot agree as to what is moral, and we can agree that neither party is omnscienient, then by defintiion any morality derived by either party is subjective.

 

[Opcode42]

Totally unrelated note. This new quote system sucks.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

I appreciate that but I'm thinking of morality from a different perspective. Not having derived from our minds, and not from a individual view. I'm sure theres a word for this (wish I knew it!) that existence isn't just as the individual perceives, it takes place with a billion individual perceptions within it.

So in that sense, and I do believe that a power is responsible for the universe, there is a morality that goes beyond our invention of it.

Maybe morality isn't even the right word, it's all semantics, just the idea of there not having to be inevitable suffering, and altruism.

 

[Chalnoth]

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.

Rats aren't digested alive. Constricting snakes kill their prey before they start swallowing (they actually squeeze their prey hard enough to stop their prey's heart beating). But while it may be death for the prey, it is life for the predator.

And the death of some members of a population strengthen the surviving members of the population (by tending to eliminate from the gene pool the more debilitating traits). So even death can be good.

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.

Oh, morality is highly subjective. No matter how objective you may believe your own moral code may be, if you define your moral code, I guarantee you that it will be quite easy to come up with ambiguous situations.

And do you really think there is that much suffering and pain? Is that how you see your life, as being nothing but suffering and pain? Are human lives so different from the lives of other fairly intelligent social animals? Do you think that all animals that can have the capacity would define their lives as being pain and suffering?

 

[Opcode42]

I appreciate that but I'm thinking of morality from a different perspective. Not having derived from our minds, and not from a individual view. I'm sure theres a word for this (wish I knew it!) that existence isn't just as the individual perceives, it takes place with a billion individual perceptions within it.

So in that sense, and I do believe that a power is responsible for the universe, there is a morality that goes beyond our invention of it.

Maybe morality isn't even the right word, it's all semantics, just the idea of there not having to be inevitable suffering, and altruism.

But you are a limited, non omniscient being. As such you are not capable of deciding what an absolute morality would be. You can not examine this from a different persepective, if such a perspective requries omniscienince.

Sorry to harp on this again, but really this is coming across as the protestations of youth when it realises for the first time that the world is often a very harsh and unfair place, and cannot at first cope with this. Instead you try to push it away, saying this isnt how it should be.

Well regardless as to wether it is right or wrong, it IS how it is. You can say theres a higher morality that deems this wrong all you want, but if such a morality does exist, and still allows the world to be the way it is, then such a morallity is not used by any being, wether that be god or not. You are basically arguing that god as you define he/she/it is an immoral being.


Wishing for things never changes anything. Sometimes you have to accept reality, and learn how to work with it to improve it.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

'But while it may be death for the prey, it is life for the predator.'

But would you feel the same if it was your beloved pet cat or dog that was ripped to pieces?

'And do you really think there is that much suffering and pain? Is that how you see your life, as being nothing but suffering and pain? Are human lives so different from the lives of other fairly intelligent social animals? Do you think that all animals that can have the capacity would define their lives as being pain and suffering?'

Prey animals live in almost constant fear. You know, I once visited a place where they took in cows from factory farms and just let them live a life. And a fully grown cow is an anourmous animal, and im about 5'10. A cow is maybe in terms of weight..I don't know 6 or 7 times my size, and if I moved toward one it would back off and move away instantly. That is fear and that is wicked.

And no my life isn't but I'm not concerned with my life. I'm concerned with the hundred billion animals that are murdered by us each year, and before us, the cycle of fear, pain through killing from animals, and now the suffering of humans that exists.

This world is despicable.

 

[Chalnoth]

I feel very, very sorry for you. With an outlook like that, how can you ever hope to be happy?

 

[Opcode42]

I feel very, very sorry for you. With an outlook like that, how can you ever hope to be happy?

Teen angst, it usually passes.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

'Well regardless as to wether it is right or wrong, it IS how it is. You can say theres a higher morality that deems this wrong all you want, but if such a morality does exist, and still allows the world to be the way it is, then such a morallity is not used by any being, wether that be god or not. You are basically arguing that god as you define he/she/it is an immoral being.


Wishing for things never changes anything. Sometimes you have to accept reality, and learn how to work with it to improve it.'

But isn't it crazy that everyone has this aspiration but then, they lose it because it seems impossible. Lennon said the same thing and that song is an all time classic, religion works because it tells people they can live out this utopian aspiration when they die.

If so many people have the same aspiration of a better existence what makes it impossible? The systems of control that people have put in place? If they can never be broken I'll never become a part of this system. I would rather face my worst fear and die if just to inspire some people to try and make this world better.

By the way about morality and invidual, I don't believe in a higher power I believe in the concept of pantheism, and that the problems aren't for any god to solve but humanism.

 

[Hydra009]

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.

Yeah, same here. I should have known better.

Imo, it's do to some serious epistemological differences: on one side, you have people whose knowledge is based on evidence, where science is a tenative and trustworthy endeavor and one's mind can be changed with sufficient evidence. On the other side, you have people who are postively convinced that they have access to absolute truth on the subject and have committed themselves to the unquestionable authority of this absolute truth, and no contradictory evidence, real or imaginary, can ever change one's mind and anyone who does change one's mind is guilty of blasphemy. In short, one mindset follows truth, the other follows Truth.

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 dawned 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.

Agreed. As an aside, it's sort of embarrassing that Crevogetics even exists - that anti-evolution sentiment is seen as piety, that ignorance is seen as faith.

I was witnessing the latent death throws of those who opposed the age of reason in favor of superstition.

I hope so, but America isn't out of the woods yet. Science education still seems to be in bad shape, so it doesn't matter how many court cases creationism/ID loses, if we keep getting generation after generation of people ignorant on basic scientific principles, let alone evolution, we're going to end up right back where we started, with ignorant pawns fed misinformation by those with a political agenda into thinking that science is evil and a threat to religion and therefore, must be suppressed.

Were there really enough religious zealots to make inroads toward a theocracy here in the United States of America?

Yes.

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.

I agree. It's the old modernist-fundamentalist controversy again. From their perspective, it looks like science is driving away religious belief; that scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are displacing traditional Christian tenets. Yet plenty of people have no trouble at all reconcilling their faith with modern science. So why the controversy?

Like the heliocentric solar system the real truth will prevail and creationism will be relegated to antiquity.

Imo, this has already happened, but old ideas have a habit of sticking around for long after their apparent demise. People still believe in astrology, ghosts, alien abductions, ESP, etc.

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.

It's possible, but I doubt it'd happen in my lifetime. Fear is a powerful emotion, it'd take a large social change for mankind to move past being exploited by fear for political crusades.

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

Gratz.

 

[TheBear]

Thanks for the OP. It expresses a lot of my frustrations as well.

 

[Opcode42]

'Well regardless as to wether it is right or wrong, it IS how it is. You can say theres a higher morality that deems this wrong all you want, but if such a morality does exist, and still allows the world to be the way it is, then such a morallity is not used by any being, wether that be god or not. You are basically arguing that god as you define he/she/it is an immoral being.


Wishing for things never changes anything. Sometimes you have to accept reality, and learn how to work with it to improve it.'

But isn't it crazy that everyone has this aspiration but then, they lose it because it seems impossible. Lennon said the same thing and that song is an all time classic, religion works because it tells people they can live out this utopian aspiration when they die.

If so many people have the same aspiration of a better existence what makes it impossible? The systems of control that people have put in place? If they can never be broken I'll never become a part of this system. I would rather face my worst fear and die if just to inspire some people to try and make this world better.

By the way about morality and invidual, I don't believe in a higher power I believe in the concept of pantheism, and that the problems aren't for any god to solve but humanism.

I never said it was immpossible. But you cannot change the universe. Just our little part of it. You seem to rail against the entirity of existence as being unfair and in some sense evil, and expect it to change because you want it to, or even because humanity as a whole wants it to. That cannot and will not happen. We are not gods.

You cannot change how other life behaves, lions will always kill antelope. Fungus will always grow out of death, sharks will always eat fish.

We can however affect change on our little planet. We can affect change in how humans interact with each other and other life on this planet. If you can accept that, then you can actually do something about it. But if you continue to blame the universe for the reality of existence, the fact that life requires death, then you will achieve nothing but your own demise.

 

[TheBear]

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.

Since when do we look to science for moral guidance? That doesn't even make sense.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Opcode that's the whole point of my philosophy, it's a reasoning which makes sense to me why these things exist and how we can change them, on this planet. They don't have to exist forever just because they do now, regardless of science saying that they do.

Until we find life somewhere else in the universe we should assume we're it imo.

Maybe what you call getting over teen angst is letting your convictions be corrupted by the immorality which surrounds you. On this point hitler is inspirational in that, he could from his convictions (although they were wrong) manage to impose them on millions, on half of europe.

If convictions that wrong can come to life why couldn't convictions so good?

 

[Opcode42]

Opcode that's the whole point of my philosophy, it's a reasoning which makes sense to me why these things exist and how we can change them, on this planet. They don't have to exist forever just because they do now, regardless of science saying that they do.

Until we find life somewhere else in the universe we should assume we're it imo.

Maybe what you call getting over teen angst is letting your convictions be corrupted by the immorality which surrounds you. On this point hitler is inspirational in that, he could from his convictions (although they were wrong) manage to impose them on millions, on half of europe.

If convictions that wrong can come to life why couldn't convictions so good?

No, what I call teen angst is your naive belief that by making every human become a vegetarian, stopping all war and violence, essentially living in harmony with each other in peace and love, you will miraculously stop all animals from eating each other, change every life process on the planet so it no longer requires the sacrifice of another lifeform to proceed, or stop the inherent violence that takes place in our universe. The seeming belief of a young girl who wants everyone to be soft and cuddly like her stuffed animals were when she was young. When everyone loved each other, and would never think to hurt anyone. The naive belief that you can cause all of this change in a lifetime, when the reality is it will take many generations to adopt world wide vegetraianism, and will be a llong and protracted battle, becausly to be perefectly meat tastes good, and many of us would like to keep eating it.

 

[Chalnoth]

Since when do we look to science for moral guidance? That doesn't even make sense.

Not guidance, certainly. But we should all look to science for information from which to draw moral conclusions. I still think that the example I gave previously of homosexuality is very good, where we have learned that there is a significant biological component to homosexuality (for example, third sons from the same mother are vastly more likely to become homosexual than first sons...and yes, this has been uncorrelated with social factors relating to having older brothers).

This scientific information definitely has bearing as to the moral question of homosexuality.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Not guidance, certainly. But we should all look to science for information from which to draw moral conclusions. I still think that the example I gave previously of homosexuality is very good, where we have learned that there is a significant biological component to homosexuality (for example, third sons from the same mother are vastly more likely to become homosexual than first sons...and yes, this has been uncorrelated with social factors relating to having older brothers).

This scientific information definitely has bearing as to the moral question of homosexuality.

this is a nice and informative way to put the issue, goes along with the idea that ethics is an amateur sport, everyone has to be involved for themselves, however that does not mean that the trainers have to be amateurs as well as the participants. We can gain much good guidance from science but in the end we are responsible for our own actions and bear some responsibility for actions of the groups we are a part of.

 

[Tomk80]

I was reading Terry Pratchett's "Thief of time" and stumbled apon a very appropriate quote for the above discussion with mnbvcxz87.

Lobsang, sitting cross-legged on the stones, carefully turned the yellowing pages on the ancient notebook on which was written, in faded ink, "The way of Mrs Cosmopilite".
"Well?" said Lu-Tze.
"The Way has an answer for everything, does it?"
"Yes."
"Then..." Lobsang nodded at the little volcano, which was gently smoking, "how does that work? It's on a saucer!"
Lu-Tze stared straight ahead, his lips moving. "Page seventy-six, I think" he said.
Lobsang turned to the page. " 'Because,' " he read.
"Good answer," said Lu-Tze, gently caressing a minute crag with a camel-hair brush.
"Just 'Because', Sweeper? No reason?"
"Reason? What reason can a mountain have? And, as you accumulate years, you will learn that most answers boil down, eventually, to 'Because'."

 

[NPH]

Excellent OP Empirical. Your very last sentence sums up the feeling of liberty I experienced the day I deconverted well.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Opcode I don't think it is naive. It's no less mystical than rebirth in buddhism. It's the idea that if as the dominant power on the planet our actions were good, then good would come back to us from life, from all of the aspects of life which at the moment are at the same level as how we act.

Humans so far act appalingly, and we die of disease, animals fight eachother, etc it's karmaic in a way. You give good you get good back.