More Dawkins idiocy...

[Augustus]

Not impossible, but strange. I say this because such a pursuit could come only from a critical thinking orientation, which we know is counter to dogmatism.

"The application of science and reason is moral as they are intrinsically good" - That's pretty much dogma in humanist circles, and seems remarkably immune to critical thinking and evidence.

As far as statements like "human are fundamentally violent", well personally I'll never submit to such a hopeless mindset. My goal is for humanity to flourish, I've no interest in buying in to a doomsday orientation.

It isn't a hopeless mindset though, it is just realistic rather than utopian. It doesn't say that we shouldn't try to reduce violence or individuals and even societies can't be non-violent, but it accepts that there will always be violence in varying amounts.

Think of it as harm reduction versus eradication.

When you think eradication is possible, you get war on drugs, war on terror which make things worse. Thinking violence can be eradicated can lead to similar follies.

All that said, I don't have any major quibbles with "Augustusism" Minor quibbles, but not major ones.

Oooh, what are they?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

you said:

"The application of science and reason is moral as they are intrinsically good" - That's pretty much dogma in humanist circles, and seems remarkably immune to critical thinking and evidence.

FWIW, it's never said in the secular circles I travel in and am aware of. But your quote is also a bit odd because you reference "reason" and then you say reason is immune to critical thinking?

In reference to the inevitability of violence, you said:

Think of it as harm reduction versus eradication.

Of course we can never eliminate violence, I never said we could, and I don't recall anyone ever saying that humanism would eliminate violence. The question is which approach is most likely to reduce violence. From that perspective, humanism has an enviable record. Not perfect, but better.

So just drop the idea of "eradication" from your head, no one is advocating that mindset.

== comments on Augustusism

you said:

The sciences are a valuable tool in understanding the world, but they are limited in regard to many issues, subject to the failings of humans and society and thus also a constant source of incorrect knowledge. As such, they form only one part of our method for understanding the world, albeit a very important one.

This is first a mischaracterization of science, and second, the anthropomorphized "science" that you refer to doesn't claim to be the only way to understand the world.

you said:

While tradition may be a cause of harm, it has stood the test of time and should not be dismissed without good reason. It also acts as a brake on naive progressivism, which has been shown to be a frequent cause of harm throughout history.

Every behavior should be looked at from the same perspective. "Tradition" shouldn't get a free pass, nor should a new theory. They both should be held up to scrutiny.

you mentioned culture:

Morality is largely a cultural construct, but not all cultures are equally good. There are things which can be said to be undesirable to all people which should be opposed everywhere. There will never be a universal convergence of culture though and attempts to impose one on other nations will likely be counterproductive. Within reasonable limits, it is acceptable for cultures to expect those who enter their nations to adapt their behaviours to the local norms though.

I'm very happy that you admitted that not all cultures are equally good. I share your opinion, and it's a very politically incorrect stance

But I would say that all cultures need to be in support of universal morals. They can and will implement those morals differently, but it's no longer acceptable for a given culture to be in opposition to universal morality.

Finally, you said:

Finally, we should deal with the world the way it is, rather than the way we wish it was.

This is ambiguous. I could take this to mean we shouldn't try to create change, but my guess is that's not what you meant?

 

[Unification]

He spends so much of his time trying to educate people on evolution because it's needed, that's why.

To be fair, knowledge of evolution is not needed or a requirement for anything.

 

[Unification]

Well looking at it from your point of view. I would ask myself the question..Is it worth killing 50 innocent humans to kill one terrorist? The facts are the facts and one fact is that NATO killed far more civilians than terrorists.

We tend to have the mindset that "it's okay to do as long as it isn't me or my family, it's someone else and their family so who cares... Kill away."

 

[Shad]

"The application of science and reason is moral as they are intrinsically good" - That's pretty much dogma in humanist circles, and seems remarkably immune to critical thinking and evidence.

Seems like people are looking at science as if it had a mind of it's own and goals. I believe it would be better to say science has no such stance, it is neutral. What people do with science is where such a stance is located, identified and evaluated repeatedly. For example rocketry has been used for beneficial and negative purposes. The purpose and development of specific forms of rocketry is dictated by us, humans, not the rocket or science itself. We dictate the development of firework, exploration or weapon payload. Science, and Engineering, dictate if our ideas work or not. People seem to forget that science has a human element in which any individual's own ideals are the guiding principle of use and the goals of such research. Many agree with the methodology but not the practical application of either field but seem to treat the methodology as if it was some practical form of ethics itself. SM is not some form of hippocratic oath

 

[icehorse]

To be fair, knowledge of evolution is not needed or a requirement for anything.

What's needed is to shift people from being dogmatic to thinking critically. Understanding evolution isn't - strictly speaking - "necessary" directly for most people. But the fact that it's a common debate point between critical thinkers and the dogmatic makes it an important thing to understand.

 

[Unification]

What's needed is to shift people from being dogmatic to thinking critically. Understanding evolution isn't - strictly speaking - "necessary" directly for most people. But the fact that it's a common debate point between critical thinkers and the dogmatic makes it an important thing to understand.

There is a difference between thinking critically, logically, reflectively and thinking evolution. Someone can be a critical thinker all day without ever having any knowledge of evolution.

We can educate others on how to think critically, logically, and reflectively without the need to educate evolution. Unless there is a some sort of hellfire for the "lack of evolution knowledge" after physical death.

It's like telling someone to stop being an animal yet telling them they are an animal at the same time.

Educate someone on how to stop living like an animal by thinking logically, reflectively, and critically. Teach humans what to deny, why to deny it, and how it's a negative influence. There is little profit in just steering someone to "evolution." Yet that teaches that our cognitive minds are what separates us from animals.
So we are not just an evolved animal if we have a critical thinking mind that separates us from being an animal.

 

[outhouse]

"The application of science and reason is moral as they are intrinsically good" - That's pretty much dogma in humanist circles, and seems remarkably immune to critical thinking and evidence.

How could that ever be true

It is exactly like saying, reason and logic are immune to critical thinking and evidence.

 

[outhouse]

"The application of science and reason is moral as they are intrinsically good"

All this is saying is that a better understanding of nature and using reason, is morally good. It is. It is not up for debate, and why it is even being questioned is beyond me.

 

[icehorse]

There is a difference between thinking critically, logically, reflectively and thinking evolution. Someone can be a critical thinker all day without ever having any knowledge of evolution.

We can educate others on how to think critically, logically, and reflectively without the need to educate evolution. Unless there is a some sort of hellfire for the "lack of evolution knowledge" after physical death.

It's like telling someone to stop being an animal yet telling them they are an animal at the same time.

Educate someone on how to stop living like an animal by thinking logically, reflectively, and critically. Teach humans what to deny, why to deny it, and how it's a negative influence. There is little profit in just steering someone to "evolution." Yet that teaches that our cognitive minds are what separates us from animals.
So we are not just an evolved animal if we have a critical thinking mind that separates us from being an animal.

The point about arguing evolution is that when religious folks deny evolution because of their literal interpretation of their scripture, we end up having huge problems in the world. What we can longer afford is for people to deny evidence on important topics, in favor of their scripture. In the US, there are a LOT of fundamentalist Christians who believe that the earth is ours to pillage, and that we don't have to worry about global warming because Jesus is coming back... soon!

If this sort of dogmatic, scripture-based thinking prevails, our grandchildren will despise us for how poorly we treated their planet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To be fair, knowledge of evolution is not needed or a requirement for anything.

It's a requirement for people who want to know how the world around them works.

 

[Unification]

It's a requirement for people who want to know how the world around them works.

The only world around someone is now. Evolving physically and consciously, now. Someone can know, learn, and experience the world around them without knowledge of distant past evolution.

If someone wants to learn and have knowledge of evolution, in the distant past, so be it. That's great. Harmless.

Saying that it's a compulsive need, requirement, and will transform humanity is where I disagree. Humanity gets not very far living in the past. Focused more on the world "around" them in ancient past as opposed to their own inner world and now. Hoarding boatloads of knowledge is vastly different than knowing what to do with that knowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only world around someone is now. Evolving physically and consciously, now. Someone can know, learn, and experience the world around them without knowledge of distant past evolution.

If someone wants to learn and have knowledge of evolution, in the distant past, so be it. That's great. Harmless.

Saying that it's a compulsive need, requirement, and will transform humanity is where I disagree. Humanity gets not very far living in the past. Focused more on the world "around" them in ancient past as opposed to their own inner world and now. Hoarding boatloads of knowledge is vastly different than knowing what to do with that knowledge.

Knowledge can and will always transform societies. It helps us learn and progress.

Evolution is happening now.

 

[Unification]

The point about arguing evolution is that when religious folks deny evolution because of their literal interpretation of their scripture, we end up having huge problems in the world. What we can longer afford is for people to deny evidence on important topics, in favor of their scripture. In the US, there are a LOT of fundamentalist Christians who believe that the earth is ours to pillage, and that we don't have to worry about global warming because Jesus is coming back... soon!

If this sort of dogmatic, scripture-based thinking prevails, our grandchildren will despise us for how poorly we treated their planet.

All of that stuff can be educated into minds without knowledge of ancient evolution.

I agree that there are many negative and harmful abstract things in minds going around, but knowledge of ancient evolution won't change much and is irrelevant to most harmful fundamental dogma. Evolution says we are animals, so I suppose humanity is just doing what education tells them they are, being animals.

"Jesus is coming!!" "Nope, ancient evolution."

"Global warming is a huge problem" "We must educate all on ancient evolution to fix that."

We agree on many things, I just don't think knowledge of ancient evolution will transform humanity today.

 

[Unification]

Knowledge can and will always transform societies. It helps us learn and progress.

Evolution is happening now.

Very much agree, and putting that knowledge to use in constructive, beneficial, harmless ways is wisdom.

 

[Osal]

"The application of science and reason is moral as they are intrinsically good"

All this is saying is that a better understanding of nature and using reason, is morally good. It is. It is not up for debate, and why it is even being questioned is beyond me.

Which is, I think, why Augustus asserts that the idea is, in fact, dogma.

 

[Augustus]

FWIW, it's never said in the secular circles I travel in and am aware of. But your quote is also a bit odd because you reference "reason" and then you say reason is immune to critical thinking?

I said people who claim to use reason can be immune to critical thinking. You are making the reverse of the "Jesus was peaceful, how can Christianity be violent?" argument and treating it normatively.

As regards the idea, it is an implicit assumption or explicit belief amongst many. This was demonstrated it in a previous post.

"The application of science and reason is moral as they are intrinsically good"

All this is saying is that a better understanding of nature and using reason, is morally good. It is. It is not up for debate, and why it is even being questioned is beyond me.

It is morally neutral. The use of science and reason has often led to very dark places.

Of course we can never eliminate violence, I never said we could, and I don't recall anyone ever saying that humanism would eliminate violence. The question is which approach is most likely to reduce violence. From that perspective, humanism has an enviable record. Not perfect, but better.

So just drop the idea of "eradication" from your head, no one is advocating that mindset.

I'm not sure where we disagree on this. Humans (as a species, not individuals) are prone to violence. Ideas about humans that don't accept this fact are flawed.

This is first a mischaracterization of science, and second, the anthropomorphized "science" that you refer to doesn't claim to be the only way to understand the world.

It is a response to humanist ideology. Humanist manifesto: "Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."

"Science" is always given special status as the preeminent way to know everything. This doesn't deny we can learn in other ways, just that science is king.

I disagree that any method of knowledge should be considered intrinsically superior. Not because they are all equally valid, just that it depends on the situation and context.

Every behavior should be looked at from the same perspective. "Tradition" shouldn't get a free pass, nor should a new theory. They both should be held up to scrutiny.

That's pretty much what I proposed. The contrast with many humanists is that they tend to see 'unscientific' tradition as being a bad thing with no real value. Mostly it should be ignored and new values created out 'science and reason'.

It is a progressive ideology, but then again so was communism and imperialism Progressives have supported eugenics and scientific racialist theories.

Progressive ideas are often good, but there is lots of evidence of bad ones too.

Neither progressivism or traditionalism are inherently good or bad.

But I would say that all cultures need to be in support of universal morals.

In an ideal world. Yes.
In the real world, won't happen.

I could take this to mean we shouldn't try to create change, but my guess is that's not what you meant?

Realistic change, not attempts at idealistic change.

I know we disagree on this, but I still think humanism ignores several important truths and is thus idealistic.

 

[leibowde84]

You are the one being unreasonable by thinking its a matter of how you look at it. There is just one way too look at it. Innocent children, women and men are being bombed. You said earlier that you regard every human life equal and here you are defending masskillings of infants because of a random bs claim by the VERY trustworthy government of the United States of America.



Still stuck with IS? Fine, was there an IS before the illegal invasion of America?



Let's look at the facts:

Iraq Body Count:
A total of 77% deaths caused by NATO were on innocent civilians. Is it worth it?









But the Nazi's created themselves, they were not oppressed or bombed. I dont understand the comparison? Groups like IS never rose up when Saddam was in power. Iraq was a functioning country. Since America's involvement, there have been more killings in 10 years than all of Saddam's regime. America is pouring oil on a fire...I can't believe, you think America is doing a good job. This is just Iraq, NATO has destroyed Afghanistan aswell. Should we talk about that? No IS there right? Or hey lets talk about Libya. Just 5 years ago under Ghaddaffi, Libya was one of the most developed country in Africa. Aside from Ghaddaffi's oppression there was nothing to complain about. There were high paying jobs, infrastructure, blooming economy,Western healthcare etc. It was overall a perfectly stable country. America intervenes and the country was left in complete chaos. If you were to use your brain leebowde, you would come to the conclusion that what America has been doing in the ME is counterproductive. There is no actual democracy, freedom or safety. Can you spot any improvement..?

Why would the cause of ISIS (which I agree was largely due to the US actions in Iraq) make their annihilation any less necessary?

 

[Useless2015]

Why would the cause of ISIS (which I agree was largely due to the US actions in Iraq) make their annihilation any less necessary?

Because stop giving them a cause would eventually lead to the fall of ISIS. The biggest reason why ISIS recruits so easily is because America is feeding them reasons. By stationing their armies in muslimland, killing muslims, oppressing muslims. This is opium for groups like ISIS. As long as America continues, ISIS will grow and continue aswell. And even if America somehow annihaltes ISIS, i am sure of it that they will be subsituted by another new group. Never ending cycle basically.

 

[leibowde84]

Because stop giving them a cause would eventually lead to the fall of ISIS. The biggest reason why ISIS recruits so easily is because America is feeding them reasons. By stationing their armies in muslimland, killing muslims, oppressing muslims. This is opium for groups like ISIS. As long as America continues, ISIS will grow and continue aswell. And even if America somehow annihaltes ISIS, i am sure of it that they will be subsituted by another new group. Never ending cycle basically.

But, US troops leaving Iraq was a major cause of ISIS. And, all evidence leads to ISIS being completely unreasonable. So why would removing actual reasons for them to kill innocent people actually cause them to stop in your opinion. I feel like their only reasoning is to cause destruction and setup an intolerable "caliphate" rampant with human rights abuses.