Most exciting thing to happen this year

[Xard]

I can't touch my thoughts nor I can touch I can touch "me". Ergo my mind doesn't exist.

 

Nice logic Sand

[Tigranes]

Sand: See, the standards by which you are judging religion is sensorial. Basically, you are saying that if your five senses can detect something, then it exists; if they don't, it does not. By extension, you are saying that the sensorial standard is so absolute and infalllible, if something is not proven sensorially, it is not fit for any government.

 

Why?

 

I am not being facetious or trying to annoy: I am trying to dig to the heart of your logic. For example, senses, we all know, can be fooled. Some people will claim they have seen God with their own eyes. They may truly believe this. Now, will you claim that they are simply deluded? Why? If someone has seen God, then does it not pass the sensorial standard? Two logical results from here. One, senses can and are fooled; senses are not infallible. It is good to rely on your senses for most things; but thinking that the sensorial standard is absolute for everything in the universe sets yourself up for a fall. Secondly, how do you conclude that these people hallucinated (we're assuming they're not lying), as opposed to really seeing God? We are no longer judging in terms of sensorial standards, are we? Same with miracles. People say there are not miracles. Then, someone shows a Mary bread or something (yeah, I know). Then, we say, "well that's not a miracle, because there's another explanation for it." A scientific one, usually (fungi or whatever).

 

In other words, it is not that God cannot exist; it is that you privilege sensorial and scientific methods of evidence more than that of faith! I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. But you are speaking as if the sensorial standard is a basic truth of the universe. It is not. It is an artificial standard created by us mankind; so is scientific systems of evidence; so is religious. So, when you say, "I reject God myself, and think religion and state should not be intermingled, because I reject anything that is not sensorially proven", that is fine. I am not saying you are wrong. But I am saying, you have to recognise that you are not making that claim based on some basic irrefutable infallible truth standard of the universe. You are making a CHOICE, conscious or not, of using a sensorial and scientific method of proving truth and falsehood, and privileging them over the methods of faith. You have decided to pick one over the other.

 

So, I ask again. What if I go the other way? What if I, just as YOU have made a choice, make a choice to privilege the faith method over scientific? Then I could say that since God said women were created from man's rib-bone, the scientific babble saying this is wrong is clearly nonsense. Because, obviously, God's word takes precedence. Look, the creator of the universe just told you how women are made. Am I going to believe Him, or you with your Ph.D? That is what I could say. It might sound ridiculous, but that's because you are so firmly entrenched in the sensorial and scientific evidence methodologies that it seems natural to you to use that standard on everything. Again, that's not necessarily wrong; but knowing this is the key to understanding religion and religious people. What sounds ridiculous to you and me, what sounds/feels natural to you and me, doesn't come entirely from our 'basic human nature', whatever that is. It comes from our culture and upbringing. If we were raised in medieval theocracies, we might well be saying the exact opposite.

[Nick_i_am]

Contact was a good film if only because it tried to explain the nature of belief in faith to people with purely scientific minds.

[Humodour]

I think this is the first move from an Islamic group that I have ever found myself actually looking forward to.

 

I hold a grudge against Turkey for the Armenian Genocide and the invasion of Cyprus, but I must admit it is my favourite of all Islamic countries; perhaps not least of all because it doesn't practice Sharia Law and is in fact a secular democracy - not an easy feat for a 99.8% Muslim country. It appears that the people and government of Turkey are actively seeking progress in politics, economics and human rights, and for that I applaud them.

[Sand]

I never said it was infallible but for 35 years of my life it has worked for me. I go by the evidence at hand. There is no evidence of God's existence. Plain and simple. And when it comes to laws and policies set forth by a government it needs to be secular in order to be fair and equal to all. You apply Catholic standards to the law books and suddenly Divorce becomes illegal. You apply strict Christian beliefs and homosexuals would become even more discriminated against than they are now. If you force everyone to follow Hindu tenets on the law books, say good bye to the Beef industry. Religion is all fine and good for the private citizen. If one has faith in Christianity, good for him or her. Keep it private. Keep it out of the law books. Not everyone under the rulership of a government is going to have the same beliefs therefore it is wrong to pick one belief and formalize it in governmental policies and laws.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Sand

[Tigranes]

So that I don't destroy this thread with long long replies:

 

There is no evidence of God's existence.

 

Yes, there is. It's just that you don't value that evidence, because the evidence that you value most is sensorial and scientific. What's the difference? Well, from your point of view, religion and God can't help but look unrealistic, silly, illogical and nonsensical. Because you are basically saying the sensorial and scientific perspectives are all there is, and religion doesn't have a logic of its own. The truth is that it does; you have simply chosen your path. Which is fine, but choosing your path doesn't mean you have to pretend other paths don't exist. What does it matter practically, you say? Well, it depends if you believe everything in society is fine right now. If you think some things could be better, then it pays to recognise and look at various ways of doing things and various moralities, instead of just pursuing one - that leads to dead ends.

 

Not everyone under the rulership of a government is going to have the same beliefs therefore it is wrong to pick one belief and formalize it in governmental policies and laws.

 

You are right, Sand. But as I have been trying to say (and yes, I can be too longwinded for my own good, so it's probably my fault) - what you are doing too is picking ONE belief and formalising it! You are doing exaclty that. The difference is that your 'belief' is belief in capitalism and democracy, belief in scientific evidence and modern trend of rationalism, instead of a Christian God.

[Walsingham]

Well, Tigs, I for one appreciate your long replies. It's cheaper than going to do philosophy at uni.

 

Reading this it has occurred to me that there is also such a thing as scientific orthodoxy, and that it can be used as a force for evil, just as much as religion. Viz the scientific dialectic of marxism, or eugenics.

[Humodour]

Could you define eugenics?

 

And perhaps explain why the concept is inherently evil?

[Guest The Architect]

I will. Eugenics is selective breeding, a proposed method of improving the human species as a whole. Basically, if you're not worthy enough, you have to eat ****, die, and not have any kids, but if you have genetic characteristics deemed desirable, you're encouraged or permitted to reproduce.

 

You can see why it's inherently evil, no?

[Sand]

what you are doing too is picking ONE belief

 

If something acutally exists then you don't need to "believe" it exists.

[Nick_i_am]

I assume you've seen DNA then.

 

You're not beliving in somthing that exists, you're putting your faith in scientists who say it exists. Sure you can say a tree exists, but you're taking other peoples word for the idea of HOW it exists.

 

This isn't me being a consipacy nut, claiming that the worlds scientists are pulling the wool over our eyes, it's just pointing out that scientific 'fact' is just as dependent on our belief in a scientist as religious belief is in that of a preist.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Sand]

Acutally I have. When I was in college I had to write up technical specifications and tutorial use of an electron microscope for a technical writing course. In order to write the piece I needed to learn of its use and functionality so the lab techs let me take a look at various substances, including a tissue sample.

[Nick_i_am]

Ha, that's awsome.

 

But yeah, point still applies since you're not a master scientist in every feild known to man.

 

Not to mention that you had to have faith that the machine was showing you what was actually there.

 

It might not be conscious faith, but it's still faith.

[Sand]

No, its not.

[Nick_i_am]

No, you have faith that it's not.

[Sand]

Faith, as it applies to belief, does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If there is logical proof or material evidence, then faith and belief are not necesary or used.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Sand

[Nick_i_am]

So you're defining faith as belief in somthing that doesn't have any logical or scientific evidence to it?

 

For example, while waiting for a bus, it's belief that it will arrive in 10 minutes, not faith, because the scedule says so.

 

When reading about cloning, it's belief that cloning exists, not faith, because it's published in a scientific journal with evidence.

 

When considering your own existance, it's belief that you exist, because you can see and touch and smell, not faith.

 

But then, wouldn't it be faith that the bus still exists? You have no evidence of it having crashed. Or faith that cloning exists? You've no evidence that it's a hoax. Or faith that you're not just a brain in a jar? you've got no evidence that such a thing could even happen.

 

Understand, i'm not talking about your stance on religion, i'm questioning your idea that, where somthing 'exists' there's no faith involved, even when it's completely out of your personal senses or control, at which point, faith and belief overlap.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Walsingham]

As Sand has been at great pains to point out, his arguments are boneheaded for teh simple purpose of provoking debate. I hesitate to call that trolling, because that sort odecision is better left to moderators and their misbegotten ilk.

[Sand]

Aren't you a moderator, Walsh?

[Gfted1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm

 

I am going to be following this story. Should be fascinating.

 

 

Holy crap, check out the size of that book that woman is standing next to! (about half way down the page)

[Azarkon]

I will. Eugenics is selective breeding, a proposed method of improving the human species as a whole. Basically, if you're not worthy enough, you have to eat ****, die, and not have any kids, but if you have genetic characteristics deemed desirable, you're encouraged or permitted to reproduce.

 

You can see why it's inherently evil, no?

 

That's one way to define eugenics. Another is to recognize that eugenics is the inevitable outcome of self-directed social forces that favor one group of people (in terms of reproduction) over another. Human societies have, in this respect, always engaged in eugenic practices - you yourself do it by choosing to reproduce with a certain type of people (ie physically attractive individuals) over another, social groups do it by forbidding or encouraging marriages to certain other social groups (ie people of one ethnicity preferring to marry people of the same ethnicity), and the government does it by favoring certain groups over others (ie monetary incentives, sterilization options for people with genetic diseases, screening & abortion, etc).

 

It is the extreme, coercive tactics that certain eugenics supporters promote that are evil, not the concept itself.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Azarkon

[samm]

What you are describing first is not what is meant by the term "eugenics", but is the description of an evolutory process. It becomes eugenics when anything beyond nature/disposition is involved, like the government. It is then an inherently brutal, anti-social and, subjectively speaking, despicable form of violence.

[Azarkon]

Nature and nurture are often indistinguishable, when it comes to humanity. What you describe is a particular interpretation of eugenics; it is not, by any means, the only interpretation. For example, I'd consider commercial genetic engineering (ie designer babies), even without any government intervention, intrinsically eugenicist. In this respect, the sole difference I identify between eugenics and "natural evolution" is conscious self-direction - evolution is passive, eugenics intentional.

 

I think you will find, if you look it up, that there is definitely controversy in the usage of the term. I happen to fall on the inclusive side of the debate.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Azarkon

[Tigranes]

Haha, Nick had taken over from me, but there seems to be little progress with Sand. That's fair enough - I can perfectly understand why Sand has the position he has, and why it seems like needless bother to go anywhere else.

 

The effects of language on our society are indeed pernicious; words like faith, evidence, reason, science - I tried to deconstruct them before in my long replies, to uncover the implicit assumptions within them - but I had to use those very words to do so, and indeed, words do literally fail you when you try and go against the accepted connotations.

 

By the way, the line between eugenics and environment is an interesting one. You see, it was drawn, like many other lines in our society, back in the 18th-19th centuries, when we got it into our heads that there are such things as 'Direct', or coercive, effect, and 'Indirect', or implicit, effect. The difference between hitting someone and calling him names. Making him do it by physical force, or making him do it because otherwise he can't earn any money. Eugenics in terms of putting people in cages for breeding, environment in terms of racial or sexual discrimination, or old-school upbringing (women should learn to stay home and cook, not learn to manage or anything!). Society at large is only now beginning to recognise that prohibiting and condemning the direct, while letting the indirect fly, will not help in the end. Of course we can't go ridiculous lengths here, but think about it. Who we are and who we become is dependent as much on genetics and physical conditions, as much as social environment/upbringing and mental conditions. So, if it is eugenics to breed babies who are tall, healthy with big genitals, is it not, under Azarkon's passive/intentional definition, eugenics to socially condition our parents and kids, raising daughters who want bras and big breasts at 12, indoctrinating them in religious discourse from birth (I'm opposed to this, despite my Christian inclination), educating them in a certain way?

 

Yeah, of course if we go too far, it's like saying everything is eugenics, and the argument loses all force, diffused. Let's keep it at reasonable levels though. I think it's fair to say that we practice social eugenics on a regular basis: and some of it, past and present, is quite very unacceptable.

[Humodour]

I will. Eugenics is selective breeding, a proposed method of improving the human species as a whole. Basically, if you're not worthy enough, you have to eat ****, die, and not have any kids, but if you have genetic characteristics deemed desirable, you're encouraged or permitted to reproduce.

 

You can see why it's inherently evil, no?

 

That's not eugenics. I suggest you read up on both the eugenics of the early 20th century (even this form is often completely unrelated to how you describe it), as well as what the theoretical definition actually is.

 

You'd be surprised how often we practice it today, and how much more we practice it in medicine as each day passes.

 

What you describe is more an attempt at preventing perceived dysgenics.

 

So no, I can't yet see why eugenics in inherently evil; I completely recognise the potential for abuse, but I don't see abuse as the hallmark of eugenics. It's simply a disgusting shame that the first attempts at eugenics lead to abuse.

 

A brief introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

I suppose I should qualify my defence of eugenics with my personal stance on it:

 

I support prenatal screening of many genetic diseases and defects (not all, but some). I am less supportive of forced termination of pregnancies, and more in favour of the parents having 100% choice in the matter.

 

I support birth control (including abortion up at a small length of time after fertilisation). I support in vitro fertilisation, sperm banks, and choice of sperm donor.

 

I support limited, ethical genetic engineering, should it ever be perfected in humans.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Krezack