Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

williamgrogan

I especially distrust his use of stories from his childhood or scenes from movies. It is a modern form of parable, and it has been said that one of the most common users of parables are religious people, who by 'explaining' via parable hoodwink people into thinking they have some logic & proof.

I could say touché but I was just telling you about one of my favorite movies. The Philosophy wasn't much use and didn’t save their lives either. (OK I will avoid recommending any more movies.)

I do believe that you can be a jockey and a scientist but I was referring to DadaKopf’s OUTRAGOUS comment that I was quoting an Economist or was it someone with a mental disorder?

insults such as “Reductionist” & “Scientism’ist”

Who said I thought they were insults? I think you think they are insults. I think they are complements.

Perhaps there is a gene that codes for the need to believe in something that all humans have and that in the absence of theological and religious beliefs the gene makes a protein that influences the host towards an unshakable belief in science. This would explain why so many of these people are as black and white about science as many religious people are about religion.

You could be on to something here. I also suspect thought that the gene or genes produces in the case of the religious person gullibility, insecurity, fascism, an inferiority complex, lower IQ, etc. whereas in the case of the rationalist it produces someone logical, with lateral thinking abilities (PS I’m not a homosexual), Skeptical, strong willed etc.

Anyway the main thing here is you are beginning to get the idea.

PS Has anyone noticed that the horse tips on this thread are 100% accurate? I decided this morning to back Hobart’s tip but then realised it was Wednesday’s.

Hobart

Originally posted by williamgrogan
PS Has anyone noticed that the horse tips on this thread are 100% accurate? I decided this morning to back Hobart’s tip but then realised it was Wednesday’s.

Its' got to do with my genetic makeup*

*Half man half horse! Oh, and they are not 100% accurate. But I have been constantly in profit since October of last year.
But once more we digress.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I could say touché but I was just telling you about one of my favorite movies. The Philosophy wasn't much use and didn?t save their lives either. (OK I will avoid recommending any more movies.)

That is exactly how I'm taking them, but they do distract from the point and it's not exactly clear why you're talking about them at all.

I do believe that you can be a jockey and a scientist but I was referring to DadaKopf?s OUTRAGOUS comment that I was quoting an Economist or was it someone with a mental disorder?

I haven't seen the movie about him or read the book, but his greatest achievement was the embedding theorem I believe, which nobody outside of mathematics seems to have heard of.

Who said I thought they were insults? I think you think they are insults. I think they are complements.

You said "Many of you Agnostics throw insults such as ?Reductionist? & ?Scientism?ist?", which was all I was referring to. Scientism has been referred to alright, but either it represents your position or it doesn't (and if they do, then you seek to defend them). My understanding of reductionism is that it can be easily misused and lead to false conclusions but can also often be valuable, however I haven't actually used that term myself on this thread, so perhaps I'm missing another definition in this context.

So, you must decide yourself if they are insults, but you have to realise that for me to mean the scientism as an insult would also mean that I regarded the name of any other religion as an insult, which I do not, even if I do think that those religions are flawed.

Dasilva94

Originally posted by syke
None of these seem to be directly attributable to our conscience. What can be asserted is that even with the combination of alleles expressed among any genetically diverse group it just isn't enough to account for human understanding or personality. No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber. Genes make proteins that interact with each other and thats about it

According to recent research here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040113075403.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3392143.stm
a gene called the ASPM has been identified as being involved in the evolution of the human brain from that of other primates. So perhaps it is not too reductionist to say that conscience and morality, what separates us from other animals, does have a genetic basis.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
Really? Has your "professional experience" thought you that? Any person with a passing interest in genetics would have come across the MAO gene. And just in case you have not the MAO gene, in a certain mutation, has caused the person to become violent, prone to commit rape and arson and carries a fleet of other anti-social traits. While I can only recall one example of this mutation been caused in humans, there are many examples of lab trials where this genetic mutation in mice has made them more aggressive.

In order to try to prevent you going into another leaving cert lesson on chemistry and genetics let me state the following. I accept that it is not the gene that causes this behaviour, but rather a chemical imbalance in the brain. However this chemical imbalance would not exist but for the mutation of the gene. So no mutation no violence.

Now while it would be incorrect and absurd to call monoamine oxidase the "gangster gene" you cannot fail to say that gene's do give us traits. i.e. a propensity to be more or less likely to do a certain thing if we have one version of a gene that another.

I admit that environment is as important to our tendencies as our genes. But to totally discount those tendencies is wrong.

Its funny how you use MAO as an argument and then point out why its not a very good argument. I can further go on and say its not just the gene mutation that causes the behaviour but the interaction of several systems along the way. There are tons of examples like this. A certain genetic mutation causes a misfold in one enzyme and leads to tourette-like behaviour. However, its not the gene for swearing. The point is that you often see things like "The gene for Alzheimers" or "The gene for aggresive behaviour" These "genes" do not exists in that sense. Everyone has these genes and they often do something totally unrelated to the effects they exhibit if a mutation occurs. The MAO mutation leads to a build up in adrenergic stimulants which is why you get the behavioural problems. But this doesn't mean that MAO is a gene for behaviour. The gene you refer to makes an enzyme that breaks down dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine (theres another class I can't remember right now).

A good example for highlighting the estranged disease-gene relation is Lesch-Nehman Syndrome has a point mutation that results in one of the enzymes that breaks down Uric acid not being produced. The result is a tourette like syndrome with self mutilation, auto cannibalism (they eat there faces and hands) and spasticism. Now uric acid is hardly something that plays a role in any of these, especially on a behavioural level.

What is incorrect about the genetics? The only reason I gave the in-depth science was because you said my previous posting was insufficient. I'm not having a go at you but what exactly ar eyou looking for except for me to agree with your point?

I'm not disputing that our behaviour is biologically driven, nor am I disputing that genes play a role in our development. What I am disputing is that genes govern our freewill, or at least what we call free will. That reductionist model is discarding too many other things that have a far greater impact.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Its funny how you use MAO as an argument and then point out why its not a very good argument. I can further go on and say its not just the gene mutation that causes the behaviour but the interaction of several systems along the way. There are tons of examples like this. A certain genetic mutation causes a misfold in one enzyme and leads to tourette-like behaviour. However, its not the gene for swearing. The point is that you often see things like "The gene for Alzheimers" or "The gene for aggresive behaviour" These "genes" do not exists in that sense. Everyone has these genes and they often do something totally unrelated to the effects they exhibit if a mutation occurs. The MAO mutation leads to a build up in adrenergic stimulants which is why you get the behavioural problems. But this doesn't mean that MAO is a gene for behaviour. The gene you refer to makes an enzyme that breaks down dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine (theres another class I can't remember right now).

Phenylethylamine. And will I accept your point of the chemics I would still mpoint out that in order for this "anti-social" behaviour to happen there must be the initial mutation. So your contention that there "No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber" is not correct. Or at least unproveable in the current understanding of genetics.

. What I am disputing is that genes govern our freewill, or at least what we call free will. That reductionist model is discarding too many other things that have a far greater impact.

What about the scenario whereby a genetic mutation has caused such a chemical imbalance as to lead to severe mental imparement? Is that not a case wherby gene's have had a bearing on the persons freewill?

GuanYin

Originally posted by Dasilva94
According to recent research here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040113075403.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3392143.stm
a gene called the ASPM has been identified as being involved in the evolution of the human brain from that of other primates. So perhaps it is not too reductionist to say that conscience and morality, what separates us from other animals, does have a genetic basis.

Be very interesting to see what that gene does. It may actually single out one specific evolutionary theory. I'm also curious as to where EFA sourcing comes into the equation as they'd be required for increased neuron production.

In any case, the BBC article was tosh compared to Science Daily. Every animal alive today is on equal footing on the evolutionary ladder to humans. They are just not specialised to have big brains. If we were to judge evolution on night vision or speed (as perhaps a cat might) then we would be more primative animals by that arguement so its all relative.

And it still doesn't explain consciousness or morality or the like. For all we know, cats and dogs and cows may have their own system and version of these.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
Phenylethylamine. And will I accept your point of the chemics I would still mpoint out that in order for this "anti-social" behaviour to happen there must be the initial mutation. So your contention that there "No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber" is not correct. Or at least unproveable in the current understanding of genetics.

Nope because the persons brain is not functioning in the same way as a person without the mutation. They can't develop morality in the same way as a person with no mutation so the comparison is inadequate seeing as these people don't have the same freedom of choice of morality.

Originally posted by Hobart
What about the scenario whereby a genetic mutation has caused such a chemical imbalance as to lead to severe mental imparement? Is that not a case wherby gene's have had a bearing on the persons freewill?

Again it is, but biologically speaking (and you will excuse me if this sounds Nazi-ish) these two brains are not functioning in the same way. The only apt comparsion, like the previous example, would be a comparison of morality and free will between two people with the same mutation, perhaps manifested to different degrees.

williamgrogan

And it still doesn't explain consciousness or morality or the like. For all we know, cats and dogs and cows may have their own system and version of these

I’m sure they do which brings us back to that fact that morality and consciousness or whatever we call it evolved.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I’m sure they do which brings us back to that fact that morality and consciousness or whatever we call it evolved.

Never disputed that. Its just not in the dumbed down simplified way you seem to think it did.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Nope because the persons brain is not functioning in the same way as a person without the mutation. .

Ok. So maybe I lost the wood in the trees here but is not your contention that genetics has no bearing on a persons morality disproved in what you yourself say above? The fact that the persons brain is not functioning in the same way as a person without the mutation is because of a genetic mutation? Am I correct?

Originally posted by syke
They can't develop morality in the same way as a person with no mutation so the comparison is inadequate seeing as these people don't have the same freedom of choice of morality

Does that not debunk your previous assertion that:

No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber

And maybe I am reading you wrong but you seem to be suggesting that a genetic mutation which occurs naturaly in humans can have an affect on your "freedom of choice of morality" ?

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
Ok. So maybe I lost the wood in the trees here but is not your contention that genetics has no bearing on a persons morality disproved in what you yourself say above? The fact that the persons brain is not functioning in the same way as a person without the mutation is because of a genetic mutation? Am I correct?

Its a question that opens up a whole other can of worms that I don't want to get into, mainly because scientific labelling of people with disorders is quite cold and I don't always agree with them.

The fact is that a genetic mutation is the underlying cause. However, some types of brain trauma or a stroke could have the same effect.

In summary I would say that a persons ability to display morality and a persons morality are two entirely different things. One could be a result of genetics, the other is not. I don't know if you will accept that or not.

Originally posted by Hobart
Does that not debunk your previous assertion that:
And maybe I am reading you wrong but you seem to be suggesting that a genetic mutation which occurs naturaly in humans can have an affect on your "freedom of choice of morality" ?

No, a genetic mutation in you may effect your ability to have freedom of choice or morailty in the same way that a non mutated person would. Again brain damage or disorder, by whatever means can have the same effect. But you wouldn't say that someones diet (stroke) or a blunt object(trauma) can have an effect on someones morality. It could damage or disregulate the part of teh brain where morality is governed, or interfere with the pathways that allow free choice or morality. But its a separate thing.

Dasilva94

Originally posted by syke
Its a question that opens up a whole other can of worms that I don't want to get into, mainly because scientific labelling of people with disorders is quite cold and I don't always agree with them.

Surely the subjectivity of whether something is warm or cold has little place in a scientific or clinical discussion. This is completely separate from any give doctor's bedside manner.

The fact is that a genetic mutation is the underlying cause. However, some types of brain trauma or a stroke could have the same effect.

In summary I would say that a persons ability to display morality and a persons morality are two entirely different things. One could be a result of genetics, the other is not. I don't know if you will accept that or not.

No, a genetic mutation in you may effect your ability to have freedom of choice or morailty in the same way that a non mutated person would. Again brain damage or disorder, by whatever means can have the same effect. But you wouldn't say that someones diet (stroke) or a blunt object(trauma) can have an effect on someones morality. It could damage or disregulate the part of teh brain where morality is governed, or interfere with the pathways that allow free choice or morality. But its a separate thing.

Well when a stroke or trauma do have an effect on cognition leading someone to have a differant moral outlook I don't see why one couldn't say there is an effect on morality...

GuanYin

Originally posted by Dasilva94
Surely the subjectivity of whether something is warm or cold has little place in a scientific or clinical discussion. This is completely separate from any give doctor's bedside manner.

Bingo!

Originally posted by Dasilva94
Well when a stroke or trauma do have an effect on cognition leading someone to have a differant moral outlook I don't see why one couldn't say there is an effect on morality...

If you had a close, loved family member with alzheimers who entered mid-stage and suddenly started displaying strong negative feelings towards you, would you say it was her that had changed and decided she didn't like you or would you pin it down as a manifestation of the damage done by the disease.

In short, would the person act this way if there was no damage. That is why you cannot compare the two cases. Behavioural studies often highlight this difference.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Its a question that opens up a whole other can of worms that I don't want to get into, mainly because scientific labelling of people with disorders is quite cold and I don't always agree with them.

Ok. I accept and understand that, and it was not my goal to label people.

The fact is that a genetic mutation is the underlying cause.

That was the crux of my argument.

However, some types of brain trauma or a stroke could have the same effect.

While this is true it is also irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

In summary I would say that a persons ability to display morality and a persons morality are two entirely different things.

I do not disagree with that. However that was never what I was trying to "prove". I put the word prove in inverted comma's as I would aslo pothesise that this is unproveable.

One could be a result of genetics, the other is not. I don't know if you will accept that or not.

As you seem to be in agreement with me it would be foolish of my not to agree with you.

No, a genetic mutation in you may effect your ability to have freedom of choice or morailty in the same way that a non mutated person would.

I don't deny that, in the context of genetics, however I never contended that every mutation would resort with the same "abnormalities". I did contend that those mutations would involve the same tendencies, in conjunction with the individuals environment. But my main thrust was that genes' are a factor.

Again brain damage or disorder, by whatever means can have the same effect. But you wouldn't say that someones diet (stroke) or a blunt object(trauma) can have an effect on someones morality. It could damage or disregulate the part of teh brain where morality is governed, or interfere with the pathways that allow free choice or morality. But its a separate thing.

True. But irrelivent in the context of the current debate.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
. True. But irrelivent in the context of the current debate.

Not really, because its like with like.

You can't argue that someone with a non-functioning brain is or can more or less moralistic (is that word) than someone else because of genetics, diet or a baseball bat.

Its not the gene that causes or even regulates the disorder. So if you want to argue that genetic disorders can lead to behaviour changes, I say yes, so can trauma. This, however, does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that genetics are what make us act the way we are or give us our morality, which, unless I am mistaken, is what was originally contended.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Not really, because its like with like.

It's like with like as far as the symptoms are concerned and that is it. But brain injury as a result of assault by a blunt instument is not a genetic fault, unless you want to contend that in that instance the assailaint may have been suffering from a genetic disorder.

You can't argue that someone with a non-functioning brain is or can more or less moralistic (is that word) than someone else because of genetics, diet or a baseball bat.

I did not think I did??? I never brought the contention of trauma caused by an external agency versus genetics into this debate. You did.

Its not the gene that causes or even regulates the disorder. So if you want to argue that genetic disorders can lead to behaviour changes, I say yes, so can trauma.

Good. I don't disagree with you. Howvere I never said Trauma did not. So what is your point. Are you trying to "muddy the waters" on this issue?

This, however, does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that genetics are what make us act the way we are

I'm sorry. You are wrong. Genetics have a part to play in the way we act. You have said this yourself, more or less, when you said in reference to people with some mental disorders

The fact is that a genetic mutation is the underlying cause

Now how can you say that in one breath and contradict yourself in another?

or give us our morality, which, unless I am mistaken, is what was originally contended.

and once more I will quote you:

No, a genetic mutation in you may effect your ability to have freedom of choice or morailty in the same way that a non mutated person would.

Notice your use of the word "may"

williamgrogan

When I originally said that to understand the mind that you would have to understand evolution for example, I could have said brain trauma instead. Much of what we know about the mind is related to the scientific study of those with serious brain injury.

My favourite one is Dr Sachs story of the “dead head fan” (Grateful Dead) who suffered from a brain tumour and ended up with the Moonies or was it the Hari Krishna’s? They thought he was very spiritual as a result of becoming slowly fatter and more stupid from the effects of the brain tumour. His parents managed to extract him from the religious sect and he had a brain operation. After the operation his short term memory, (RAM if you like) stopped working. This had weird effects. When he was told his father died and he was told he was very upset. But he soon forgot. The awful problem was that every time Dr Sachs visited him in the hospital he had to tell him his father was dead and the patient had to relive the pain of learning this over and over.

If this isn’t an example of reductionism I don’t know what is.

Ties nicely in here I think.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
It's like with like as far as the symptoms are concerned and that is it. But brain injury as a result of assault by a blunt instument is not a genetic fault, unless you want to contend that in that instance the assailaint may have been suffering from a genetic disorder.

I did not think I did??? I never brought the contention of trauma caused by an external agency versus genetics into this debate. You did.

Good. I don't disagree with you. Howvere I never said Trauma did not. So what is your point. Are you trying to "muddy the waters" on this issue? I'm sorry. You are wrong. Genetics have a part to play in the way we act. You have said this yourself, more or less, when you said in reference to people with some mental disorders Now how can you say that in one breath and contradict yourself in another? and once more I will quote you: Notice your use of the word "may"

While I see your angle on this I think you are playing agame of semantics.
Genetics effecting behaviour in the way you suggest is not the same thing as behaviour in a normal person.

When I said underlying cause, I said it is the underlying cause of a disorder. The mechanism for that disorder and for the behaviour exhibited in a normal person are not related. So whats your point. Is it that "in one case or another outside the average person genetics may have an effect on behaviour"? I can conceed that point easily.
Is it that genetics is the root cause of all behavioural traits in people? If thats the case you are wrong. Can you explain to me how this is the case?

My references to trauma and stroke were to underly the difference between a healthy brain and a disorder. Behaviour as a result of unhealthy brains can happen for many reason and although in the case you highlighted a gene is the cause root, it is not to say that genetics are the mainframe for behaviour in a healthy person any more than trauma or stroke. That was my point.

So again, I say, no genetics do not regulate behaviour of the healthy normal individual on aday to day basis *sigh*

Hobart

While I see your angle on this I think you are playing agame of semantics.
Genetics effecting behaviour in the way you suggest is not the same thing as behaviour in a normal person.

Semantics and genetics in the same sentance. Believe me semantics have nothing got to do with my arguement. You are the "scientist" purveying the line that genetics do not "code for behaviour in any way what so ever" and then try to skew that thesis into a world full of "normal" people. When stating my rebuttal, to the post I initally replyed too, you never mentioned nor defined what you mean by "normal". Your introduction of this term at this juncture simply belies the fact that, a bit like the journalists you quote, we really know very little about the role genes play in our day to day lifes. Yes I conceded the point of a gene having no "on-going role" in how we live day to day. But to put an analagy to you would we blame the driver of a car who crashed, while knowing that the code written for the machine which built it was faulty, and actually caused the crash?

So whats your point. Is it that "in one case or another outside the average person genetics may have an effect on behaviour"? I can conceed that point easily.

Good. That was my point.

Is it that genetics is the root cause of all behavioural traits in people? If thats the case you are wrong.

No, it's not. I don't think I ever put forward that case. If I did please point it out to me.

My references to trauma and stroke were to underly the difference between a healthy brain and a disorder. Behaviour as a result of unhealthy brains can happen for many reason and although in the case you highlighted a gene is the cause root, it is not to say that genetics are the mainframe for behaviour in a healthy person any more than trauma or stroke. That was my point.

and I still say that you were muddying the waters.

So again, I say, no genetics do not regulate behaviour of the healthy normal individual on aday to day basis *sigh*

Again say? *sigh indeed*

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
No, it's not. I don't think I ever put forward that case. If I did please point it out to me.

Ah well then thats grand. And here's me thinking you were actually believing all the genetics hokum in this thread. All that pedantism because I slagged off journalists.

Dasilva94

Originally posted by syke
If you had a close, loved family member with alzheimers who entered mid-stage and suddenly started displaying strong negative feelings towards you, would you say it was her that had changed and decided she didn't like you or would you pin it down as a manifestation of the damage done by the disease.

Both. In this particular case the disease would be manifesting itself in her change of perception and hence behaviour.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Dasilva94
Both. In this particular case the disease would be manifesting itself in her change of perception and hence behaviour.

So surely if its just a result of disease manifestation its not actually a change in "her" morailty. Seeing as the consciousness and personality traits as you knew them would have no say in this new behaviour.

Myksyk

Originally posted by syke
Ah well then thats grand. And here's me thinking you were actually believing all the genetics hokum in this thread.

With all the concern about misunderstanding of genetics, it's perhaps timely to mention that the next Irish Skeptics public lecture is entitled 'Genetics - the most restless, turbulent and demanding form of knowledge' ... and will be presented by Professor David McConnell of Trinity College on Wednesday February 4th at 8pm in the Yeats Room of the Mont Clare Hotel, Dublin. Perhaps an interesting discussion could be had in the bar afterwards (suggestion - people on this forum should wear a hat with their avitar and monikor on it )

davros

Originally posted by Myksyk
With all the concern about misunderstanding of genetics, it's perhaps timely to mention that the next Irish Skeptics public lecture is entitled 'Genetics - the most restless, turbulent and demanding form of knowledge' ... and will be presented by Professor David McConnell of Trinity College on Wednesday February 4th at 8pm in the Yeats Room of the Mont Clare Hotel, Dublin.

And, if that doesn't satisfy the evolution junkies, Feb 8 to Feb 14 is "Darwin Week" at the Museum of Natural History. More details.

Barnowl

And if you still don't have enough, Prof. David McConnell will deliver a lecture on Thurs. Feb. 12th (Darwin Day) in the Walton theatre in TCD at 8.00pm entitled "The idea of evolution - from cosmos to culture". This is organised by the Association of Irish Humanists. Further details on www.irish-humanists.org.

williamgrogan

Ecksor said … Guilt by association isn't any sort of logic. It is reasonable to get a shallow impression of an idea by examining the people who agree with it and those who do not, but ultimately an idea must stand or fall on its own merits.

I'm not exactly a fan of organised religions, but I'm sure that for any worthy idea it is possible to find an organised group of people who use that idea to justify nasty things. That doesn't say much to me about the idea itself.

I completely reject this viewpoint for a number of reasons.

Of course there could be exceptions where a theory or belief was misused and there are some examples re Science.

With religion however there is a notion that it is inspired by a “good” god. Most religions claim their religion is good. If religion was inspired by a good god then one would expect that good would come of it. However the history of religion cannot by any stretch of the imagination be interpreted to indicate that it was good. I think one of the pieces of evidence that religion is superstition is because it has produced and continues to produce such appalling injustices.

I also think its reasonable to judge any organisation by the people in it and what they do and what their goals are. You cannot disconnect an organisation completely from its members.

There are many excuses made for religion and this is just another one. I have often heard people excuse the failure of communism for similar reasons as in, “Communism is great it’s a pity no country implemented it!”

PS

I’m beginning to get the impression that many people joined the nuns and priesthood because they had personality problems.

williamgrogan

Ecksor said ….. Incidentally, that links to an essay by Dawkins that contains a lot of passages that look startlingly similar to a lot of the points you've used on this thread

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

I am a BIG fan of Richard Dawkins. I first read “A Selfish Gene”, maybe 20+ years ago? While reading it I could smell evolution. I think its by far his best and most important book.

However I hadn’t read the particular article but certainly some of the comments were familiar. One of the reasons I like Dawkins is he almost completely agrees with me!

I liked this one, “Nigerian peoples who believe that the world was created by God from the excrement of ants”, and “I take astrology very seriously indeed: I think it's deeply pernicious because it undermines rationality, and I should like to see campaigns against it.”
I believe the same about religion.

I do also believe that much of religious education is a form of child abuse.

There is an obvious reason why I say similar things to Richard Dawkins – we are both right!

Hobart

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I do also believe that much of religious education is a form of child abuse.

Why do you think this?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Of course there could be exceptions where a theory or belief was misused and there are some examples re Science.

Which is why it isn't any type of proof ...

Apart the technicalities of what consitutes a proof, discussing the behaviour of a lot of people who happen to have a belief you disagree with is far weaker than actually attacking the idea itself. (for example, I put a lot of store in the strength of science despite the atrocities that have been committed with the name of scientific theories to lend some credibility to them, or the idiotic ramblings that one often hears with "science" as their basis).

I'm prepared to examine your assumptions about the universe, the definition of your position, and a logical progression from one to the other, but you haven't defined your position (except to say that it isn't atheism, because you don't like that word), clearly admitted your assumptions, or tried to show some reasoning. When I've pointed out that your position is inconsistent (or at least your representation of my position was inaccurate, it was hard to tell because you wouldn't answer the question), you seemed to just pick whatever starting point was best to make your point, even if the point was about a different point of view altogether.

I don't know why you keep countering my points with diatribes about specific religions, I don't recall being concerned with any in particular on this thread ...

Most religions claim their religion is good. If religion was inspired by a good god then one would expect that good would come of it.

... and some religions aren't based upon the belief in god and some religions are based upon an irrational belief in the all knowing power of science. So what? Waffle all you want about religion, but you are the one who keeps raising that. The question is about god, not religions.

Of course, religion is usually relevant in the case that someone is a believer in god, in which case it's reasonable to look at the other beliefs that come along with the religion, but the inconsistency or flaw of one or more philosophies based upon a certain idea (existence of god in this case) doesn't actually show that all possible philosophies about that idea are necessarily flawed. Like it or not, a logical philosophical argument is the only way you can hope to reach any sort of coherent argument for your position.

There is an obvious reason why I say similar things to Richard Dawkins – we are both right!

He had very similar arguments to you about religion, but he didn't actually mention god in that article as far as I remember. Perhaps he did elsewhere.

Myksyk

Just received the latest issue of 'SKEPTIC' magazine and it is interesting in the context of this long discussion. It is a special issue on evolution but looks at the god/science question overall. There are articles by Dawkins and an interesting one by Simon Conway Morris (of Burgess Shale fame and one of Gould's heroes) who writes strongly against what he terms ultra-Darwinism. there is a critical review of Conway-Morris' latest book (Life's solution) and a host of other interesting bits and pieces on the general subject.

williamgrogan

Those who argue Muslims have a right to dress their children as faith and tradition prescribe are absolutely right. The expression of spiritual belief is a fundamental right, encompassing, among others, the right to bear witness; the right to assert humility before a Superior Being; the right to nurture a collective religious culture.

John Waters IT 26-01-04

Is it not child abuse to brainwash girls into believing a religion that forces them to hide their faces because they are a source of temptation to men?

williamgrogan

Throughout this thread I made the point that we evolved our sense of morality. Well someone's written a book to say this.

The Science of Good and Evil
Why People Cheat, Gossip, Share, Care, and Follow the Golden Rule
Henry Holt/Times Books. 350 pp. Illustrations. $26. ISBN: 0-8050-7520-8
Michael Shermer

In The Science of Good and Evil, the third volume in his trilogy on the power
of belief (the first two volumes were Why People Believe Weird Things and How
We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God), psychologist and
historian of science Dr. Michael Shermer tackles two of the deepest and most
challenging problems of our age: (1) The origins of morality and (2) the
foundations of ethics. Embedded within these two problems are questions that have
occupied the greatest minds in history: Is it in our nature to be moral or
immoral? If we evolved by natural forces then what was the natural purpose of
morality? If we live in a determined universe, then how can we make free moral
choices? Does evil exist, and if so, what is the nature of evil? Why do bad things
happen to good people? Is there justice in the world beyond the social order?
If there is no outside source to validate moral principles, does anything go?
Can we be good without God?

In this stunning conclusion to an intellectual journey into the mind and soul
of humanity, Dr. Shermer peels back the inner layers covering our core being
to reveal a complexity of human motives--selfish and selfless, cooperative and
competitive, virtue and vice, good and evil, moral and immoral. Shermer shows
how these motives came into being as a product of both our evolutionary
heritage and cultural history, and how we can construct an ethical system that
generates a morality that is neither dogmatically absolute nor irrationally relative
"a provisional morality for an age of science that provides empirical
evidence and a rational basis for belief."

Broad in scope, deep in its analysis, and controversial to its core, The
Science of Good and Evil applies the latest findings of science to offer an
original model of the bio-cultural evolution of morality and a new theory of
provisional ethics that challenges the reader to confront these timeless issues from
a new perspective--one that suggests that both morality and immorality
evolved in human biological and cultural evolution, that we can make free moral
choices in a determined universe, that moral principles can have a sound rational
basis supported by empirical evidence (without being dogmatically absolutist or dependent on an external source of validation), and that we can be good
without God. Shermer calls for a national debate on the origins of morality, the
basis of moral principles, and the need for a more universal and tolerant
ethic; an ethic that will insure the well-being and survival of all members of the
species, and of all species.

PRAISE FOR THE SCIENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL

"This is an ambitious book, and it does not disappoint. The questions Shermer
addresses are as old as rational thought, but they have taken on a new
urgency as we come to understand ourselves through the sciences of mind, brain,
genes, and evolution. His analyses are sophisticated and filled with good sense,
and are enlivened with fascinating material from science and history. The
Science of Good and Evil is an excellent snapshot of contemporary thinking about
the nature and sources of morality."
--Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and
author of How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate.

"Morality must have arisen long before modern religion came around to lay
claim to it. Michael Shermer engagingly brings this controversial topic to life.
This is the most convincing argument to date that the origin of our sense of
right and wrong is to be found within us, that it is part and parcel of human nature."
--Frans de Waal, author of Good Natured

"Michael Shermer's brain is a place where science, history and psychology
meet in the service of common sense. He uses his insatiable curiosity to
penetrate the fog of fuzzy thinking, shedding light on the most controversial issues
of science and society. Yet another courageous book."
--K. C. Cole, author of Mind Over Matter and The Hole in the Universe

"There is no other volume on evolutionary ethics and its history that is as
stimulating, critical, and comprehensive as Michael Shermer's. All of us are
daily challenged by ethical dilemmas, and one's solutions are rarely
satisfactory to everyone; this is particularly true of some of the solutions based on
religion and philosophy. In the end, we must construct a Darwinian answer to the
daily challenges of living a moral and ethical life. The best guide known tome is
Shermer's profound analysis in The Science of Good and Evil."
--Ernst Mayr, author of What Evolution Is

williamgrogan

I think all of this is relevant to what we have been discussing. I get this via email from the USA Skeptics.

---

REVIEWS OF THE SCIENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL

The source of morality is the topic under discussion in Shermer's latest book
to champion rationalism. Religion received a critique in How We Believe: The
Search for God in an Age of Science (1999) and does so again here as Shermer
offers propositions on the origin of our ordinary, innate sense of right and
wrong. Disposing of religion's rival, moral relativism, Shermer dedicates his
effort to convincing readers that his thesis, labeled "provisional morality,"
makes more sense. What that means is that ethical rules are accepted
conditionally and are as falsifiable as any scientific theory. Shermer takes this precept
into the realm of evolutionary psychology, drawing applied ethics from such
drastically different sources as anthropological field studies in Amazonia and
the TV show The Honeymooners. Contending that the source of ethics is solely
evolutionary, Shermer conducts his argument in an assertive but not
gratuitously aggressive fashion. This stance as well as his populistic bent should earn
him the hearing that he clearly hopes believers in God will give him.
--Gilbert Taylor

Kirkus Review
Imagine there's no Heaven (as John Lennon suggested): what, then, is the
foundation for morality? Skeptic magazine editor Shermer (In Darwin's Shadow,
2002, etc.) seeks to answer that question and to discover a scientific explanation
for our notions of good and evil. He quotes Darwin to the effect that all
scientific observation must be either for or against some point of view and avers
his own viewpoint to be "non-theistic agnosticism": the decision that, since
God's existence is unprovable, he will live and act as if there is no God. The
origins of morality and ethics, common to every society on Earth, must then
lie in human institutions, Shermer concludes. Over hundreds of thousands of
years, our ancestors arrived at moral principles designed to maintain peace and
order in communities of ever-increasing size and complexity. The earliest
"moral" principles are those that many animals recognize, such as protecting one's
mate or young. As human society grew, the needs of larger and larger groups
became the basis of morality; at the center of many of them lies somethinglike
the Golden Rule, treating others as we would wish to be treated. At the same
time, early superstitions coalesced into religions, each of which took on the
role of sanctioning the moral principles of its parent society. Shermer goes on
to argue that evil has no independent existence but is inherent in human
nature. Yet no outside authority is needed to make us moral, he argues; atheists
(or temporary doubters) seem no more inclined to kill and steal than the
religious. The true dignity of our morality arises from its basis in our common
humanity. Shermer draws effectively on familiar instances, from the Columbine
killings to the Holocaust, to illustrate and support his thesis. Thought-provoking
and well-honed examination of deep questions.

---

New York Sun Review
Book Review by John Derbyshire

The God of the Gaps had a hard time of it in the 20th century. By 1900
thoughtful people had long since reconciled themselves to the fact that the Sun is
not the chariot of a god, but a ball of incandescent gas whose apparent motions
follow natural laws. They knew that lightning and thunder are caused not by
vis superum but by electrical discharges in the atmosphere. They understood
that the world was not created one Friday afternoon in 4004 B.C., but had existed
for eons. The physical sciences had been reduced to cold mathematical
equations. The human sciences were another story, though. Plenty of gaps there! The
wrath-of-Poseidon theory of earthquakes might no longer be tenable, but how
could one explain the human conscience without invoking Divine inspiration? What
do "good" and "evil" mean in the absence of supernatural ordinances and
sanctions? Must it not be the case, as Dostoyevsky famously wondered, that if
there is no God, then anything is allowed?

Now, a hundred years later, the God of the Gaps has very nearly been chased
out of the human sciences, too. The general air of triumphalism was caught
nicely by novelist Tom Wolfe in a 1996 essay for Forbes ASAP titled "Sorry, But
Your Soul Just Died." (Though Wolfe left an escape hatch for God at the end of
the essay.) A few forlorn rearguard actions are still being fought--in
biology, for example, by the proponents of Intelligent Design--but all in all the
human sciences at the beginning of the 21st century are not far behind where the
physical sciences were at the beginning of the 20th in explanatory power and
the production of testable hypotheses, and in the dwindling requirement for
supernatural explanations of anything at all.

Michael Shermer, who is the editor of Skeptic magazine, has set himself the
task of deriving a universalist ethic suitable for these times, without any
appeal to the God of the Gaps, or indeed to any other manifestation of the
transcendental. The ethic he comes up with is "provisional morality." Shermer
explains the roots of this doctrine as follows:

"I believe that morality is the natural outcome of evolutionary and historical
forces operating on both individuals and groups. The moral feelings of doing
the right thing (such as virtuousness) or doing the wrong thing (such as
guilt) were generated by nature as part of human evolution."

He goes on to derive some simple "golden rules" that will allow us to
determine whether an action is right or wrong. There is, for example, the Happiness
Principle: "It is a higher moral principal to always seek happiness with
someone else's happiness in mind, and never seek happiness when it leads to someone
else's unhappiness." That would seem to rule out any kind of competitive
activity--running for President, for example--since the losing competitors are
bound to be left unhappy. I guess the author's principles need a few hundred
pages of qualification. Was there ever a system of ethics that didn't?

Shermer tells us that he became a born-again Christian when a senior at high
school. He went on to attend Pepperdine, studied theology, and only emerged
into, as he sees it, the cool clear light of agnosticism after long questioning
and wide reading. Certainly he is no angry, dogmatic God-hater. The Science of
Good and Evil is a good-natured book, full of useful and curious facts about
the history of ethics. I had forgotten, for example, the calculus of felicity
worked up by Jeremy Bentham (beneath whose embalmed head I used to walk on my
way to college classes every morning). Bentham tried to quantify the ups and
down of life, with "hedons" as units of pleasure and "dolors" as units of
sorrow. Kant's Categorical Imperative gets an airing here, too; and there is a
useful thumbnail guide to the menagerie of ethical systems available to the
curious enquirer nowadays: Consequentialism, contractarianism, deontology, natural
law theory, and so on.

I would have liked this book more if it had been better written. Clunky
cliches abound. The anthropologist Ken Good, struggling with the morality of his
love for a Brazilian tribeswoman, "was on an emotional roller coaster."
Vegetius's qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum is attributed to Liddell Hart. We
learn that: "There is a maxim anthropologists often cite...: The enemy of my enemy is my friend." One expects at any moment to be told that man is the animal that drinks when he is not
thirsty and makes love in all seasons. At times one seems to be reading a Mission
Statement cooked up for one's corporation by one of those tiresome diversity
consultancies:

Provisional ethics accommodates the range of individual variation found in
human populations and suggests that we should pass judgments, make awards, and
heap penalties only with regard to our great diversity. Such accommodational
flexibility leads irrevocably toward greater tolerance...

These slight blemishes aside, though, I think Shermer has made his case very
well. The thing one wants to know, but which of course he cannot tell us, is:
Will a few decades more of peace, prosperity, and advances in our
understanding of the human sciences cause the human race at large to abandon ethical
systems based on supernatural premises? Shermer quotes the great evolutionary
biologist Edmund O. Wilson on this point: "The choice between transcendentalism and
empiricism will be the coming century's version of the struggle for men's
souls. Moral reasoning will either remain centered in idioms of theology and
philosophy ... or shift toward science-based material analysis."

The problem with "science-based material analysis" is that it is a cold
temple whose pale blue flame gives little warmth. However well Michael Shermer's
provisional ethics may satisfy sanguine middle-class American intellectuals
with a good grasp of the human sciences, no such system will attain widespread
acceptance if it fails to nourish key components of the human personality.

Most people will always follow the moral precepts favored by their family,
neighbors, and culture, without much reflection. It is an admirable thing for an
ethical system to be founded on nothing but the latest results in published
scientific papers. It is, however, much more important that it has a clear
appeal to the broad mass of unreflective humanity, offer some consolation to them
in misfortune, and cannot be easily misapprehended as a license for sloppy
situational morality. Michael Shermer's prescriptions, though admirable in all
sorts of ways, do not, in my opinion, pass that test.

williamgrogan

---

Washington Post Review
Codes of Conduct
A professional skeptic tries to find evidence for morality in the natural order.

Reviewed by Anthony Brandt
Sunday, February 1, 2004; Page BW05

THE SCIENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL
Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule
By Michael Shermer. Times. 350 pp. $26

[snip]


WG - I haven't read the book yet but I will. However the negative comments in the reviews seem trivial in comparison to the subject matter.


[davros: if you really want to find out about copyright violation, repost an article from an American newspaper. You know how easy it is for them to find this stuff using a search engine?

See: http://www.donder.com/washpost.html
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/contents/permissions.htm?nav=globebot]

---

williamgrogan

Jehovah’s Witnesses

The debate as to whether or not JW’s can refuse blood transfusions for their children has been going on long time in www.irishhealth.ie

http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=5108

As far as I can see the reason the JW's refuse blood transfusions is that it says so in the bible and the reason it does is that the blood contains the "life force", whatever that is.