NerblyBear wrote:Do we really utilize the scientific method to decide moral questions?

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the origins of the universal moral code (human decency) we are all conceding. Richard Dawkins makes a strong case for it being an evolutionary trait, given that those in proximity to us for millenia were likely to be either kin (whose genes we woud be at advantage to help preserve) or people we would remain in close company with. Thus evolved the golden rule as an innate behavior.

Like all scientific hypotheses, this will need to be tested for contradiction and supported by evidence to become more widely accepted, but it is a start.

As for whether or not an action is moral, we each get to make that calculation ourselves. There is a lot of overlap in these conclusions, but there are occasional disagrements. That's how you can tell there is no ultimate moral authority. If there were, there would be an appeal to that authority and nobody could disagree.

The term "Christianity" is forced to do way too much work in these debates. What is at stake is not Christianity, nor even religion itself, but certain strains of belief and the practices that shape political, social, and intellectual life. Fundamentalist Christianity produces serious opposition ("anti-Christianity"), but what is at stake is not, in the final instance, divine revelation, or the transubstantiation, or prayer; what matters is the attitudes which inform both our treatment of others and the institutions we build.

There is a long tradition of Left-wing Christianity in Canada that has been not just instrumental but foundational in implementing socialized medicine, securing the rights of women, defending immigrants and fighting racism, and on and on. I never step foot in my parents' church but for the funerals of family members. But when I do, I am never surprised that the pamphlets in the foyer aren't about Revelations: they're about landmines, the plight of Mexican corn farmers, Palestine, aboriginal poverty, etc.

Who fucking cares if these people believe in God? It's totally beside the point. On most issues that matter to me, they are allies.

One thing that annoys me about the Dawkins School of Atheism is that it refuses to give real consideration to the social and material reality of religion. Religion is real. It meets real needs, in different ways, for different communities.

The irony for me is that the greatest mark of stupidity and anti-thought (if not misanthropy) lies not in belief in God but in the belief that the distinction between non-believer and believer is one of intelligence vs. stupidity; put differently, what is most stupid of all is not to believe in belief, not to seek to understand where it comes from, or how it functions and can be made to function in different contexts.

The anti-Christian position too easily slides into religio-phobia and makes a fetish of secularism. Too often complex events and problems are run through this anti-theist tunnel vision, such that folks like Hitchens, Berman, Harris and Co. align with everything from imperialist war to torture. (I mean, wtf. Sam Harris advocates torture. And it just so happens that 10 out of 10 victims of enlightened Western torture are Muslim. The irony gets a little thick for my tastes.)

242sumner wrote:I am a materialist

The importance of Marx's critique of religion was to get past the question of the putative existence of God (really, a meaningless question at best, and a chimera at worst) to a properly dialectical critique that sees religion as a symptom to be interpreted: false belief, yes, and an expression of something real (material). To deduce religious faith from false belief is to go about things wrong; Marx's trick was to stand religion on its head, deducing it not from false belief but from material reality.

On the Danish Cartoon thread I posted the following as part of a response to a question from Tim Midgett:

The church in rural and disenfranchised America is a communal and cohesive force, one of the few institutions capable of lived-community and defense against the rest of the world. But more than this, the church is also the locus for community activity and identity. To dismiss it, even in its intolerant and sometimes evangelical varieties, is to miss the point of its existence. For the individual, the church is salvation, explaining and preserving morality, even forgiving and abetting the temptations of sin.

The church overdetermines the rest of the world; rural and other- wise isolated communities have a surprisingly low degree of information flux. The church provides stability in a late-late-capitalist world where selves, ideologies, and languages are contested. Within testament and testimony, there is no contestation; the church, in other words, 'puts a hedge around the Torah' (Pirke Avot).

**

I sense that Evangelicals in the States are slowly cottoning to the fact that every election they get played in the most ruthless way by the Republican Machiavels. That could be an opportunity for the left, or at least for the Democrats.

i figured i'd widen the scope of vapid scorn.

fuck it, let's go all the way. blacks suck too.

Andrew L. wrote:One thing that annoys me about the Dawkins School of Atheism is that it refuses to give real consideration to the social and material reality of religion. Religion is real. It meets real needs, in different ways, for different communities.

Religion is one way of forming a community. An exclusive community. One that has at its core a fable, a fabrication or the belief in magic. If the community has value, it is a mistake to give that credit to the religion. The religion doesn't perform social good, the people of the community do. That they identify with each other as believers is immaterial.

I too have met good christians, or good people who see their good nature as an expression of that part of their identity. In that light, I have also met good dope dealers, mormons, pool hustlers, bookmakers, republicans, policemen, Latin Kings and Frat Brothers. I do not identify these people by their affiliation, but rather by their behavior. Religion is no more important than Elks Lodge membership.

I am, like whatssisname, a materialist.

I am very close to at least one person who has been considerabely screwed psychologically up by catholicism.

like mr albini said, religion forms an exclusive community. I believe in all-inclusiveness on the basis of common humaniy and nothing more.

blah, blah, blah. I'm an athiest.


However, I'd never, ever shit on somebody's religion. That is so far from cool. This doesn't mean I approve of the bible as a justification for slavery in days gone by or any of that shit. I just can't get down with voting "crap" on a demographic of people based on their beliefs.

As far as religion being rediculous in the eyes of logic, I don't really care. Don't you philosopher-types have more important things to be worrying about than whether religion is feasable? At least critique for all the injustice its inadvertantly brought about or something like that.

Arguing against faith is like criticizing art: a useless endeavor. a waste of time and effort.

Faith has its place in society, as does reason.

Although I agree that science doesn't require blind faith in the same way as religion I would say that many scientists, or people who believe in science do have the same kind of blind faith in it (or its present understanidng of the world).

As a result people with new ideas which may go against the orthodox view of things are often effectively excommunicated from the scientific community. Sometimes for good, often for years.

These science believers are behaving exactly like religious people (I am inclined to think this 'faith' thing is somehow hard wired into us. Which is why atheists display the same characteristics as religious's but that's another thread, probably)

Maybe it worth pointing out also that, as I touched on in the agnostic thread, science has 'proven' that the very fundamental base of all reality is illogical and unreasonable.

Many science types I think often run away from that as if it were a giant shit beast hurtling down their high street just after the pubs have closed.

Anyways, Christians get more stick because their massive voting block made it look like Bush might have won.


He didn't by the way.


bosh!

shitballs. i missed out on the meeting where we got together and decided we had a 'universal moral code'. i should really go to more of the universal decision making meetings. m-m-m-morality is s-s-s-subjective and as such cannot be universal. if you think any differently you need to get out of the house, look around and maybe even visit other countries/cultures/civilisations. universal my fuckin hole.

Earwicker wrote:As a result people with new ideas which may go against the orthodox view of things are often effectively excommunicated from the scientific community. Sometimes for good, often for years.

There is a big difference in the scientific community between unorthodoxy and hackery. I have seen both first hand. The ability to approach a problem from a completely different perspective that still remains within the confines of well established natural law is applauded on almost all occasions. Solving a problem by constructing an entirely new framework, bereft of any link to proven natural law is rightly seen as idiocy. There are a great deal of scientists out there looking to make a name for themselves and as a result the frequency of hackery has increased considerably over the years. This is looked down upon the community but never have I experienced any sort of excommunication. To assert that somehow they are kicked out of the club for having radical ideas is preposterous, at least in my experience in the physical sciences. Yes, they experience a great deal of mockery and doubt in public but this can be seen as healthy. It forces them to prove that their idiocy has some merit. This is the nature of science. And on rare occasion this hackery proves to be right and we are all better off for it.

Earwicker wrote:Maybe it worth pointing out also that, as I touched on in the agnostic thread, science has 'proven' that the very fundamental base of all reality is illogical and unreasonable.

In my experience, the basis of physical structure, at least to the extent that we can clearly prove, is quite ordered and logical. There are certain forces at work in this universe and they allow for specific arrangements. This seems very logical and reasonable to me. I realize I am interpreting your assertion in reference to my specialization but I deal with a level of science that is not more than three steps away from the basis of atomic structure so I assume it fits into the category of 'basis of reality.'

I am sorry if I sound defensive but I hold science in great regard and it bothers me a bit when people assert there is any element of faith involved. I do not have faith, I have proof.


Jon

I'd just like to mention that I'm happy to see an intelligent, involved discussion such as this one on this message board once in a while. We should do this more often and replace all of the meaningless junk that clogs up this place.

NerblyBear wrote:I'd just like to mention that I'm happy to see an intelligent, involved discussion such as this one on this message board once in a while. We should do this more often and replace all of the meaningless junk that clogs up this place.