• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

More Dawkins idiocy...

leibowde84

Veteran Member
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.
That is an immensely unfair question, as killing one terrorist saves the lives of all those who that terrorist may have killed in the future. When you look at WWII, for example, every innocent life taken most likely saved the lives of hundreds in the long run. So, oversimplifiying the issue in the way you have is just unrealistic.

ISIS has to be wiped off the face of the earth or they will continue their killing of innocent civilians indefinitely. Certainly there will be civilian casualties in the process, but that doesn't mean that their deaths are in vain. ISIS is smart, and they understand that surrounding themselves with civilians will make it harder for the west to act. But, as we've seen this week, our patience is running thin. We have no choice but to attack ISIS, and I fail to see how blame can reasonably be put on anyone but them.

Are they really stupid enough to think that we will ever cease fighting them and their ill-conceived caliphate. There is no chance in hell that we will ever allow them to continue to exist.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
You might have a point. Though I think he goes about it the wrong way and even said, still makes millions out of it. ALL his books could be free on the internet. It's not as though he is poor.
Don't let envy control you, of course he is in title to make money, and good luck to him.
 

Useless2015

Active Member
That is an immensely unfair question, as killing one terrorist saves the lives of all those who that terrorist may have killed in the future. When you look at WWII, for example, every innocent life taken most likely saved the lives of hundreds in the long run. So, oversimplifiying the issue in the way you have is just unrealistic.

A terrorist might kill or not kill. As i said the fact of the matter is that nato has killed more civilians than 'potential terrorists'. Do you think its worth to kill innocent souls to prevent a potential threat? Simple yes or no question really..

ISIS has to be wiped off the face of the earth or they will continue their killing of innocent civilians indefinitely. Certainly there will be civilian casualties in the process, but that doesn't mean that their deaths are in vain. ISIS is smart, and they understand that surrounding themselves with civilians will make it harder for the west to act. But, as we've seen this week, our patience is running thin. We have no choice but to attack ISIS, and I fail to see how blame can reasonably be put on anyone but them.

This is not just about ISIS. USA has been bombing Iraq since 2003, ISIS is the result of all those bombings. In fact, ISIS literally proved that killing innocent people to avoid a potential terrorist attack doesn't work. If anything it makes it worse..

Are they really stupid enough to think that we will ever cease fighting them and their ill-conceived caliphate. There is no chance in hell that we will ever allow them to continue to exist.
They are very smart. You give them the motivation and reasons to continue their slaughter. Also the weapons they use are paid and bought by the American taxpayer. What reason would IS have to attack if they are not attacked?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What reason would IS have to attack if they are not attacked?

So you don't have a clue what your even debating about? That's is exactly what these terrorist are doing, whom you seem to be rather fond of.


Why do you like self centered genocidal maniacs who are cowards?
 
Hi Augustus,

I'm not trying to side-step, but I disagree with some of the premises that you build your questions on. For example, I disagree that humanism has no basis in objective fact. So before I can talk to your later points, I feel it's appropriate to discuss the foundations of those points.

As another example, the reason I brought up relativism was to see whether we could find a starting point of agreement from which we could build. This was not meant to side-step, it was meant to find a common starting point.

So if you're not a relativist, then you must be able to evaluate the morality of certain behaviors. For example, can we agree that skinning people alive is morally bad? If so, we have a starting point from which to determine whether humanism does or does not lead to better morals and more successful societies.


Relativism is used in different contexts, such as:

1) No moral code is better, so we have to accept them all equally
2) Moral codes are based in culture rather than universal values

I disagree with 1, but mostly agree with 2. We can oppose values we dislike and hold ours to be better, although this is based on our logic and preference rather than objective fact.

If there is an 'objective morality' it would relate to the grey area, the area which, when we look at wide ranges of cultures they (almost) all have in common.

images


For the sake of this discussion, I'm happy to concede that exists. The thing is, that even if it does exist, it certainly doesn't represent humanism or anything close. If it exists, it covers a very small range of values. Even infanticide was acceptable in many cultures, including the Romans who we see as a shining examples of an advanced society from their era.

You seem to be proposing that humanistic morality is superior because it is more successful, success can't be a sign of objective morality though because when the West loses primacy, it's moral values will also lose that primacy.

If our values are objective, and from science then why are they inconsistent?

Scientifically, humans are animals. Sometimes we decide to cull animals for the greater good when overpopulation threatens the wider ecosystem. We don't accept the culling of humans for the greater good for the same reason though.

We justify forced animal labour because they are 'inferior' to us, but don't accept forced human labour in the same way (well, actually we have accepted this for most of history and still do in many places).

Our history says we are violent and the strong often exploit the weak. Why should I see humanism as reflecting an objective morality when it is has almost never existed as a widespread system of values?

Will repeat this:

The values of humanism I agree with, just not the utopian mythology that goes along with it. People like Dawkins have to believe that all of their views are based on scientific reasoning, so they end up swallowing myths to cure their cognitive dissonance.

If you jettison this 'rationalist' mythology, then you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter where your values come from. What matters is the values themselves.

When you remove the belief that your beliefs are 'scientific', it matters not if your ally is Muslim, Christian, atheist or whatever. If they share your values they are your ally. When you see your own views as representing 'truth', the people who should be your allies, become antagonists. So Dawkins is critical of 'moderate' religious people and sees them as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

This is why I see him as part of the problem.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
(I can't recall if it was this thread or another...)

As I mentioned before, I think Sam Harris has it largely correct when to say that morality almost always comes down to the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC). By that measure we can evaluate cultures and moral stances in the past and today. One example of the application of WBCC is to compare the UN Declaration on Human Rights vs. the Cairo Declaration. Using WBCC, we can say that the Cairo Declaration is inferior.

Humanism is very closely aligned with WBCC.

Of course we might come up with a better system in the future, but for today, can you think of a more moral approach than WBCC?
 
(I can't recall if it was this thread or another...)

As I mentioned before, I think Sam Harris has it largely correct when to say that morality almost always comes down to the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC). By that measure we can evaluate cultures and moral stances in the past and today. One example of the application of WBCC is to compare the UN Declaration on Human Rights vs. the Cairo Declaration. Using WBCC, we can say that the Cairo Declaration is inferior.

Humanism is very closely aligned with WBCC.

Of course we might come up with a better system in the future, but for today, can you think of a more moral approach than WBCC?

From the very beginning of this thread I've stated that I'm not talking about the merits of the belief system, just that its foundations are not based on objective fact.

WBCC is just an arbitrary construct reflecting the values of the person who created it.

Anyway, if WBCC is a measure of morality, I'm not sure what it says about a society that herds animals to their slaughter in their millions. We prefer our delicious, wonderful bacon to their well being.

It's very much 'some animals are more equal than others'.

Why is utopian humanism more objectively factual than an anti-utopian morality that accept human's violent and flawed nature, yet encourages respect and compassion as virtuous despite the knowledge that this won't lead to salvation?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
"objective fact", that's often hard to pin down. Again borrowing from Harris, much of what we pursue is slippery. We study things like nutrition and healthcare, even though we often don't have rock solid, permanent assessment criteria.

When you say that it's foundations are not based on objective fact, it strikes me you're wandering back into relativism. If not, then can you cite an example of a moral that you would say is an objective fact. In other words, you're either a relativist or you're not.

As far as the treatment of animals, I'm with you. I wouldn't say that we've achieved WBCC, but I would say that some cultures are closer than others.
 

Olinda

Member
"objective fact", that's often hard to pin down. Again borrowing from Harris, much of what we pursue is slippery. We study things like nutrition and healthcare, even though we often don't have rock solid, permanent assessment criteria.

When you say that it's foundations are not based on objective fact, it strikes me you're wandering back into relativism. If not, then can you cite an example of a moral that you would say is an objective fact. In other words, you're either a relativist or you're not.

As far as the treatment of animals, I'm with you. I wouldn't say that we've achieved WBCC, but I would say that some cultures are closer than others.
Very interesting discussion, Augustus and Icehorse!

I would like clarification of why saying that an ideology - utopian humanism in this case - is seen as 'wandering back into relatavism'. Perhaps it's fine to hold an ideology, the best one can find, and live up to it, being aware that it is not evidence-based. It may well be opposed to relatavism.

As I understand it, Augustus' problem with Richard Dawkins' beliefs is that he doesn't understand this (or denied it).
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hey Olinda,

I probably didn't tie the threads together very well. Here's how I see these linkages:

- Only pure relativists *should* claim that there are no objective morals
- In practice there are many *objective* morals. Perhaps not philosophically, theoretically, perfectly objective morals, but objective enough to satisfy 99.9% of real world situations.
- Once you admit to these (in practice) objective morals, you can start to evaluate and compare the success or lack of success of different cultures. In other words, I'd say that we DO have evidence that humanism is objectively *better*.
 

Olinda

Member
Thanks again Icehorse,
As I understand the term, a 'pure relativist' would claim that ethical truths depend on the individuals and communities that hold them, whereas if someone had 'objective morals' s/he would hold that those apply to all people.

I'm not sure how you see many objective morals that would satisfy 99.9% of world situations. Do you mean for example the UNDHR? As an ideology to live by, I'd need a lot more, I think, than these.

Now the next sentence I understand to mean that we can 'measure' and compare the success of cultures by how well they adhere to the 'objective morals', and so introduce the link to 'facts' and evidence'. Have I got that right?

First, though, we would need consensus on the objective morals, their relative importance and how to measure 'success'. and I don't see that would be easy to reach. ie, how can we compare a society that hadn't ratified the UNDHR to one which ratified it and applied it only in part? Or without enforcement? What of those people who still hold that living in their culture without it is 'better'?

I see the UNDHR as a great thing, but a political construct with a purpose. My personal beliefs and values are another thing, although there are many points of agreement. I have no way of 'proving' that my way of living is 'better' or 'worse' than that of someone else with a different ideology.

So I guess I have 'objective morals'. But they are not based on facts or evidence.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hi Olinda,

I can't recall if I've already offered this link in this thread (if so, sorry):


Maybe a point I should have made is that the perspective I'm pitching here doesn't have all the answers today, but it provides a unifying path towards a set of good answers.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
WW1, WW2, Naziism and the final solution, Soviet Communism, Maoist China, the Khmer Rouge.

This is the last 100 years.

Progress?

Only by looking at an arbitrarily selected short term snapshot can you argue about 'progress'.

How is this anything other than an availability bias?
 
When you say that it's foundations are not based on objective fact, it strikes me you're wandering back into relativism. If not, then can you cite an example of a moral that you would say is an objective fact. In other words, you're either a relativist or you're not.

You still haven't clarified what you mean by relativist, it has multiple uses. I've explained my position on this but am not sure what you mean by it.

"objective fact", that's often hard to pin down. Again borrowing from Harris, much of what we pursue is slippery. We study things like nutrition and healthcare, even though we often don't have rock solid, permanent assessment criteria.

To use your healthcare analogy, many things we do are not because they are objective fact, but because we think they are beneficial at that time.

The form of morality that is most beneficial surely depends on your environment. What works best in Copenhagen today might not work best in a "Mad Max' type world after an ecological collapse.

If morals are objective, then this should not be the case. Maybe morality is just what we think works best at the time.

Then we also have to think about what the aim of morality is. Happiness? Prosperity? Survival? And what constitutes morally correct behaviour? Golden rule? Greatest good? Equal harms/benefits?

We could, for example say that , 'objective' morality is that which nobody would want to have done to them. Nobody wants to be killed, enslaved, tortured. But this certainly doesn't lead to humanism, just a very narrow range of core values.

However, our history shows us that humans will use their power to shape their environment to their own liking. I'm unaware of any cultures that have had power yet not projected it. Can you think of any examples?

This is my problem when we talk about about 'objective' of 'scientific' morality. It seems to go against our very nature.

Now I think we can, as individuals, aim to rise above our nature, but I don't see it happening universally. This is where I differ from the utopian. My view is based on evidence not wishful thinking.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hey Augustus,

I don't consider my stance to be utopian. I consider it to be essential for survival. And of course I don't think it will be easy to achieve. I just don't see what choice we have. The world is too small, it has too many occupants, and our weapons are too powerful to survive with competing sets of morals.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
You might have a point. Though I think he goes about it the wrong way and even said, still makes millions out of it. ALL his books could be free on the internet. It's not as though he is poor.
This is pretty darn unreasonable. He's a professional author. He makes his living off selling books (for the most part). He also makes money speaking. No one should be expected to work for free.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Availability of the most murderous century in human history?

Can you explain why we should pretend that it didn't happen just because it doesn't fit the narrative?

Because "most murderous" is not a real metric, first of all. The world population doubled in the last fifty+ years. It would also be the "most non-murderous" century in history if I just counted the number of people not getting murdered at this moment, compared to the past.

If violence was measured per capita, I doubt you'd have much evidence to suggest this was the most murderous century in human history. Actually, your probably familiar with Pinker, who wrote a book on just how less violent the world is becoming:

"Pinker and other experts say the reality is not painted in bloody anecdotes, but demonstrated in the black and white of spreadsheets and historical documents. They tell a story of a world moving away from violence.

In his new book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined," Pinker makes the case that a smarter, more educated world is becoming more peaceful in several statistically significant ways. His findings are based on peer-reviewed studies published by other academics using examinations of graveyards, surveys and historical records:

_ The number of people killed in battle – calculated per 100,000 population – has dropped by 1,000-fold over the centuries as civilizations evolved. Before there were organized countries, battles killed on average more than 500 out of every 100,000 people. In 19th century France, it was 70. In the 20th century with two world wars and a few genocides, it was 60. Now battlefield deaths are down to three-tenths of a person per 100,000.

_ The rate of genocide deaths per world population was 1,400 times higher in 1942 than in 2008.

_ There were fewer than 20 democracies in 1946. Now there are close to 100. Meanwhile, the number of authoritarian countries has dropped from a high of almost 90 in 1976 to about 25 now.

Pinker says one of the main reasons for the drop in violence is that we are smarter. IQ tests show that the average teenager is smarter with each generation. The tests are constantly adjusted to keep average at 100, and a teenager who now would score a 100 would have scored a 118 in 1950 and a 130 in 1910. So this year's average kid would have been a near-genius a century ago. And that increase in intelligence translates into a kinder, gentler world, Pinker says.

"As we get smarter, we try to think up better ways of getting everyone to turn their swords into plowshares at the same time," Pinker said in an interview. "Human life has become more precious than it used to be."

Pinker argued his case in a commentary this past week in the scientific journal Nature. He has plenty of charts and graphs to back up his claims, including evidence beyond wartime deaths – evidence that our everyday lives are also less violent:

_ Murder in European countries has steadily fallen from near 100 per 100,000 people in the 14th and 15th centuries to about 1 per 100,000 people now.

_ Murder within families. The U.S. rate of husbands being killed by their wives has dropped from 1.2 per 100,000 in 1976 to just 0.2. For wives killed by their husbands, the rate has slipped from 1.4 to 0.8 over the same time period.

_ Rape in the United States is down 80 percent since 1973. Lynchings, which used to occur at a rate of 150 a year, have disappeared.

_ Discrimination against blacks and gays is down, as is capital punishment, the spanking of children, and child abuse."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html

I point to your example as availability bias, because all you did was just recall the most recallable terrible things, and gave no significance to, say, I don't know, the Shi Rebellion of the 8th century, when some 36 million people died....
 
Last edited:
Hey Augustus,

I don't consider my stance to be utopian. I consider it to be essential for survival. And of course I don't think it will be easy to achieve. I just don't see what choice we have. The world is too small, it has too many occupants, and our weapons are too powerful to survive with competing sets of morals.

That's what Bush and Blair thought too. Didn't work out so good.

Why I consider it to be utopian is that it is not realisable. How do you propose getting everybody to agree that humanism reflects objective morality?

What about in this situation: I've been elected leader of a developing country with a lot of social problems and corruption. I only care about the welfare of my people. The parliament and judiciary are corrupt to the core and will do everything to prevent my reforms.

I decide that I need to bypass all democratic processes, so I gain the loyalty of the Army by quadrupling the wages of the lower ranks, and purging the old corrupt leaders. I round up all of the corrupt power elite in the country and execute them and confiscate their property (I factually know they are guilty, but would be hard to prove it. Anyway, I've arrested all the judiciary and the elite still potentially hold enough sway to corrupt any replacements).

I then rule the country as a benign dictatorship, not tolerating dissent against the government but allowing freedom of speech in all other areas. I create remarkable growth, the rule of law for the population, equal opportunities for all and a solid welfare state. My government is known for it's honesty and devotion to making society better.

I don't want to transition to democracy as things are going so well. I hand the country over to my daughter as I know she has the same values as me.

This would, I imagine, break the rules of your objective morality. But if I had followed them, my country would still be a corrupt oligarchy. Am I a moral person? 95% of my people are now far better off than before.

Is this objectively wrong? Is it ok as long as I am improving society? If there is a recession am I then wrong?

What do you think?
 
Top