 |
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Government plans to expand the number of Church secondary schools are "evil", the eminent scientist Richard Dawkins said yesterday. He is leading a growing intellectual revolt against plans to reform comprehensives, which include a clear commitment to single-faith schools.
Another academic, Anthony Grayling, a reader in philosophy at Birkbeck College, London, warned that young children were being "brainwashed" into accepting religious dogma which they could not evaluate for themselves.
Professor Dawkins, the Oxford University professor of the public understanding of science, attacked church schools as divisive, and Dr Grayling called for legislation preventing local authorities from promoting any organised faith. But Church leaders dismissed the arguments as "tired" and said they simply wanted to cater for demand among parents for a religious education.
Tony Blair has signalled support for more Church secondary schools as part of his drive to reform the comprehensive system outlined in a Green Paper this month. Religious schools were praised as were specialist secondaries which will be expanded as part of the biggest reform of secondary education for 50 years.
A report for the Church of England by Lord Dearing, a former government education adviser, called for the creation of an extra 100 Anglican secondary schools in five years.
But Professor Dawkins said many people were being forced to become churchgoers so they can secure places at academically successful religious schools. "It is idiotic the idea that parents have to take their children to church to smuggle them into a school which, through no credit of the denomination, supplies something the parents want," he said.
"The idea of expanding single-religion schools seems positively evil. Making the assumption that automatically children should be brought up in the religion of their parents, thereby increasing divisiveness in society is, I think, evil."
Dr Grayling said: "Why should an atheist taxpayer like me be forced to fund these schools? If I were to set up a school which taught belief in fairies and I wanted Government money no one would say yes."
But the Right Reverend Alan Chesters, Bishop of Blackburn
and chairman of the Church of England Board of Education,
said: "I do not buy the argument about people bringing
children to church to get into school. They may not be able to
accept the faith, but they may want the advantages that the
faith community gives their children. It gives them a sense of
worth, a sense of community and a sense of faith."
Wouldn't it be a wonderful world, Dr. Grayling, if none of us had to watch our tax money go to things which we don't support. I imagine there are some non-atheist taxpayers in the UK (the few who remain) who are not too pleased about seeing their taxes being used to fund lesbian advice centers and contraceptive giveaways for pre-adolescents. Not that this comes anywhere near the horrific danger to your youth of "being brainwashed" in religious schools.
Recent statistics on the dwindling religious beliefs of Britons indicate that the only "brainwashing" which is occurring is in the acceptance of the new secular, humanist god. The one Drs. Grayling and Dawkins kneel before.
But Professor Dawkins said many people were being forced to become churchgoers so they can secure places at academically successful religious schools. "It is idiotic the idea that parents have to take their children to church to smuggle them into a school which, through no credit of the denomination, supplies something the parents want," he said.
This has been going on for years in NY, where paraochial schools are many parents' only alternative to the horrid public schools.
By keeping the govt schools at the horror-show level, leaving religion-based education as the prime alternative, the "system" sets up the wonderfully simplistic dialectic of church vs. state schools, so it can avoid the issue of quality or competition in education.
warned that young children were being "brainwashed" into accepting religious dogma which they could not evaluate for themselves.
As opposed to what? What public schools do every day? Currently children are being brainwashed with humanistic religious values. I say get government out of schooling altogether. Let values come from where they should -- the parents.
I guess as long as the Queen is the head of the Church of England . . . Dawkins is fighting windmills.
Let values come from where they should -- the parents.
Surely you jest. Either today's parents have no values, or their values range from the Radical Religious Right to the Ultra-Liberal Left. At least if the government runs the schools, there's some consistency in the values, and then we can change whatever that value is, like we're trying to do now (may the best man win).
Of course, that battle's been going on for years and the winner is yet to be decided (if ever).
Educational politics can now shift into a debate about which church schools should get funding. Buddhist? Scientologist? Islamic? Roman Catholic? Druidic? BATF approved?
"...At least if the government runs the schools, there's some consistency in the values, and then we can change whatever that value is..."
Commies are real good at this.
Interesting article, Marsh....and good analysis by you! BTW, isn't it interesting that secular humanists always proclaim a "brainwashing" of students in religious schools. Of course, what they don't know (or don't want anyone else to know) is that it is religious schools where more sides to the story are actually told. One can get information on various world religions and worldviews in a religious school. One can learn ALL theories for origins - not just the theory of evolution. And so on, and so on.....
At least if the government runs the schools, there's some consistency in the values
Certainly there is... and it's all leftist. The idea that schools should be instilling values in children instead of their parents is truly Orwellian. Yes, parental attitudes are all over the map from left to right, devout to atheist. It's a scary concept called Freedom of Thought.
Richard Dawkins was my teacher at Berkeley. Young aspiring animal behaviourist at that time, teaching the Animal Behaviour course alongside full Professor George Barlow at Cal. Truly a brilliant man, one of the outstanding minds of our time, and funny too. He had not written The Selfish Gene yet- that came about 5 years later.
Ah, we were so much older then, and younger than that now....I will pray for Professor Dawkins and the sweet memory of old Blighty....
"BTW, isn't it interesting that secular humanists always proclaim a "brainwashing" of students in religious schools."
And lest we forget, Dawkins is a leading proponent for evolutionism. Look at the values with which he wants to "brainwash" kids:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins, "River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," 1995
A creed for nihilists and anarchists.
BTW, secular humanism is a religion, as identified by the U.S. Supreme Court in not one but two landmark cases:
Secular Humanism was first affirmed to be a religion, by the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1961, in the case of TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488. The court reversed a lower court decision which upheld a "religious test" for anyone seeking to hold public office in Maryland.
Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States.
Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution provides:
"[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God . . . ."
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11
Footnote 11 states:
Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
In closing his opinion for the court, Justice Black wrote:
This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.
Other cases citing and upholding the notion that Secular Humanism is a religion are:
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970):
Petitioner was convicted of refusing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces despite his claim for conscientious objector status under 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. That provision exempts from military service persons who by reason of "religious training and belief" are conscientiously opposed to war in any form, that term being defined in the Act as "belief in a relation to a supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation" but not including "essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal code." In his exemption application petitioner stated that he could not affirm or deny belief in a "Supreme Being" and struck the words "my religious training and" from the form. He affirmed that he held deep conscientious scruples against participating in wars where people were killed. The Court of Appeals, while noting that petitioner's "beliefs are held with the strength of more traditional religious convictions," concluded that those beliefs were not sufficiently "religious" to meet the terms of 6 (j), and affirmed the conviction. Petitioner contends that the Act violates the First Amendment prohibition of establishment of religion and that his conviction should be set aside on the basis of United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, which held that the test of religious belief under 6 (j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption. Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 335-367.
Welsh v. United States cited the Torcaso case in footnote 8, which reads:
This Court has taken notice of the fact that recognized "religions" exist that "do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God," Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11, e. g., "Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."
Richard Dawkins is pushing a religion for which he gets taxpayer subsidies by keeping the schools "government owned and operated."
Get government out of the indoctrination business.
This is definitely not the biggest change in fifty years. The biggest change was the elimination of the Grammar Schools, which is not yet complete but accellerated in the eighties and nineties until there are only a handful left. A leveller like Blair will not support a movement to bring back educational excellence within the state system (which is what the grammar schools were) -- he's too tied to the leftist equal-outcomes dogma (like many who would undermine public education, he is the product of private schools himself, as is his wife). A little background is in order here.
Thee secondary school system in Britain was, before World War II or so, divided into schools for the public and private (costly, usually boarding) schools for the traditional elite, a very tiny percentage of students. Especially after the war, reformers changed that to an excellent but rigidly meritocratic system.
From then until the 1970s, the system was based on examinations. Most lower grade schools (then called Infants and Primary) were pretty much the same. At age 11 every student took the Eleven-Plus examination. Your performance on 11+ dictated where you went from there. Good performers went to a Grammar School that stressed a good rounded education and preparation for university. Kids who bottomed out were sent to a Secondary Modern -- which warehoused 'em until normal school-leaving age of 14 or 15 and prepared them for the work place... this was not like an American Vocational/Technical school but just (what was then considered) minimal basic education required for citizenship.
At the end of school there were Ordinary and Advanced level examinations (the famous O and A levels you may have heard of). Colleges and even employers expected their recruits to have specific examination credentials for the position. What's more, the exams meant something. If a student had an O level in math, you knew with absolute confidence what he could do. If he had an A level, most aerospace concerns could take him on as a draughtsman and apprentice engineer without further formal schooling. Under this system, many people became powerful and successful executives and wealthy businesspeople with a credential that on its face appears to equal a US public high-school diploma.
Governments, especially labour governments, and social and educational "experts" attacked this system fiercely in the 60s and 70s. In their view it was "Elitist" and "destroyed" the kids who were assigned to the Secondary Moderns. This brought about the policy of Comprehensive Schools. These would replace both the Grammar and Secondary Modern schools, and offer, said the Laborites, "one excellent level of education for all." Equal outcomes, you see.
Conservatives said this would produce a Secondary Modern level education for all -- for those who needed it and also for those who needed more. Laborites scoffed at this idea, but it is exactly what happened (actually, it's worse than that: most Comprehensive School products couldn't shine the shoes of the old Secondary Modern school-leavers!). When the performance levels on the O and A level exams took a nose dive, the exams were renormed (if you read that as "dumbed-down," you know how these things work).
The unintended consequence of this was development of a vast network of private schools, like the ones the Blairs send/plan to send their children to. Some of them are affiliated with a religious denomination, some have no religious affiliation or religious instruction.
The BOBOs running Labour have (suddenly, like a whack upside the head) noticed that these schools far outperform the Comprehensives (to which I must say: "Extraordinary, Sherlock, how the blazes do you do it?")
I am an American but have family there and am a keen observer of Britain's spiralling decline. No one in his right mind would send a bright child to a comprehensive -- their standards are far lower than the Secondary Modern of 1970. That leaves the comprehensives in the hands of a death-spiral of the poor and wretched and those not in their right minds.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins, "River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," 1995
and in this article he says:
"The idea of expanding single-religion schools seems positively evil. Making the assumption that automatically children should be brought up in the religion of their parents, thereby increasing divisiveness in society is, I think, evil."
What is it, Perfesser? Evil doesn't exist? Or it does?
I say get government out of schooling altogether
Amen! Where in the Constitution does it say the government is responsible for education? My two kids had 11 years of 'Evil' Church school and one year gub'ment school. That one year was Hell on a horse. Students that make it throgh public school and retain their principles are are made superior fiber, as well as their parents.
Whoa! Good catch! You've run headlong into the thing that drives me nuts about most of evolution's proponents: they tailor the argument and the evidence to suit the occasion. That's why arguing with them is like trying to herd cats. Every argument is an argument made out of convenience, and not based on any sound, objective, empirical foundation. If it were, then as you have so capably pointed out, which "objective" view of Dawkin's world are we to accept? That evil exists, or it doesn't?
You've just made this thread a "keeper" for me. :)
Later...
Darwin was right??? Have these boobs ever read Darwin?!? Are they suggesting that Darwin was "right" when he wrote:"But none of these headlines capture the most basic, the most important consequence of mapping out all of our genes. The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right — mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.""The message our genes send is that Charles Darwin was right."
Or was Darwin "right" when he wrote:"It is an interesting factthat ancient races, in this and several other cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors."Charles Darwin,
"Descent of Man" 1871
Chapter 1
Or was Darwin "right" when he wrote:"But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races. Nevertheless it does not warn them of danger, nor guide them to their food; nor does it prevent the Esquimaux from sleeping in the most fetid atmosphere, nor many savages from eating half-putrid meat."Ibid.
Then there's this tidbit from a recent Washington Post article on the story of the HGP:"The inferiority of Europeans, in comparison with savages, in eyesight and in the other senses, is no doubt the accumulated and transmitted effect of lessened use during many generations; for Rengger*(3) states that he has repeatedly observed Europeans, who had been brought up and spent their whole lives with the wild Indians, who nevertheless did not equal them in the sharpness of their senses."Ibid.
But wait! If mankind "evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors," how is it that we all reached almost the exact same point in our evolution (99.9% identical) by chance??? And all this despite the fact that mankind has inhabited so many wildly diverse habitats?"For all the evolutionary creativity that led to the human race, however, there is shockingly little variation from person to person, genome scientists said. Individuals around the globe all are about 99.9 percent genetically identical, an indication of how recently the human species arose and how little time it has had to diversify."1 Posted on 02/12/2001 02:56:56 PST by GeekDejure
If Darwin were really right, we might expect to see greater evolutionary variation within the human specie, as Darwin so noted when he wrote, "the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors." However, just the opposite is true. Darwin was wrong. And to believe that mankind "evolved" to almost virtually the exact same point in our existence by chance, is to ask people to believe in a miracle greater than a special act of creation.
In any event, this is just another case where evolutionists want to have their cake and eat it, too. They pronounce Darwin right hoping that no one bothers to read what he actually wrote.
And I just can't let this pass either:
If this statement were universally true within the scientific community, why use the findings of the HGP to pronounce him right? What difference would "vindicating Darwin" make one way or another, if he really didn't matter to evolution?"Darwin doesn't matter to evolution."187 Posted on 08/23/1999 01:25:25 PDT by garbanzo
In the end, virtually all of the arguments in support of evolution - like the one cited above - are merely arguments of convenience. As such, they portray a proclivity for intellectual dishonesty that would make James Carville blush.
Failed to mention in last post that the lead quotation was taken from a recent thread on the HGP (Human Genome Project.)
BTW, did you notice tallhappy's catch in post 13? Further proof of the intellectual dishonesty of the evol crowd. Dawkins writes on the one hand, "There is no evil," then calls what Britain is doing with its public schools "evil."
My how shrill evols get when they perceive their power to influence the minds of the young to be jeopardized by competing ideologies, don't they?
Hehehe...
I pray that you are all safe and well after today's "shaker." Get back to us as soon as your phones are back up and let us know if all is well.
To borrow a phrase from good old Tricky Dick Nixon, Dawkins "handed his enemies a sword" by employing the term "evil" to describe religious education, a term which implies the very system of morality he claims to refute. For all his rabidly aggressive atheism over the past thirty or more years, I can't recall him ever making so silly a blunder. I think poor Richard is getting a little impatient as he approaches his senior years. He dearly wants to bury the much despised superstitions of the Christians, and I guess things aren't moving along quickly enough for him.
Dawkins will be explaining this remark for a while, but I don't believe the process of explanation will open any new doors of understanding for him. Dawkins is just one of those guys who really thinks he has it all figured out. He is very hardened in his position.
When I read The Selfish Gene long ago, it sent me down a long road of discovery and inquiry into evolutionary theory. The journey has been highly rewarding and fascinating. I remain convinced by many of the "proofs" that Dawkins and others have offered for orthodox neo-Darwinism. But I reject utterly Dawkins' view as outlined in River Out of Eden:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, p 133
This is overreaching of the worst sort---totally unjustifiable. But as we see in today's report from London, even Dawkins doesn't believe it, since for him "evil" does exist in the hearts of men who dare to teach religion.
Government plans to expand the number of Church secondary schools are "evil", the eminent scientist Richard Dawkins said yesterday. He is leading a growing intellectual revolt against plans to reform comprehensives, which include a clear commitment to single-faith schools.
Evil?? What kind of BS is that coming from an evolutionist? Evolutionists cannot logically call anything good or evil; the only moral law in nature, according to evolution, is the survival of the fittest. If church schools are more fit than his firlefan schools and hence do a better job of surviving, that's just the law of nature holding true, isn't it?
"You've just made this thread a "keeper" for me. :)"
a bookmark..a bump and an AMEN!
God bless
mitch
Thanks, Mitch. Good to see you again.
Greetings my friend!
you have mail
God bless
mitch
One thing which everybody has missed, is that the genome project indicates that absolutely nothing resembling evolution is going on in the human race at this time. That is utterly incompatible with Darwinism, which would demand that some evolutionary change be going on at ALL times.
This only underscores the reality that despite their brilliance in a narrow field, most notable scientists are functional idiots in any area other than their specialty.
Albert Einstein seems to have been somewhat of an exception.
Government plans to expand the number of Church secondary schools are "evil", the eminent scientist Richard Dawkins said yesterday. He is leading a growing intellectual revolt against plans to reform comprehensives, which include a clear commitment to single-faith schools.
The above italicized paragraph and the remainder of the thread show how smart you can be and at the same time be "dirt dumb"!
Would this be a good example of an "idiot savant"?
Bump -- Dawkins is an Idiot Protagonist. "Evil"? . . . buy the man a dictionary.
"The idea of expanding single-religion schools seems positively evil. Making the assumption that automatically children should be brought up in the religion of their parents, thereby increasing divisiveness in society is, I think, evil."
Well now, isn't that a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." How can people of the Left like Dawkins extol the idea of "diversity," but the minute they see it in action anywhere they immediately slam it as "divisive?" These people really ought to get a grip. Thanks for the post, marshmallow. best wishes, bb.
Any comments on this piece, BB? I think Tudge does a great job reminding his colleagues in science that there is still a great deal to learn. I have cc'd some of our friends here who I think might benefit from the same lesson:
| The New Statesman
Essay - Why science should warm our hearts | |
| |
|
| |||
| Colin Tudge | Monday 26th February 2001 | ||
| |||
| |||
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 29 | Top | Last ]
Dr Grayling said: "Why should an atheist taxpayer like me be forced to fund these schools? If I were to set up a school which taught belief in fairies and I wanted Government money no one would say yes."
Well, the Charch of England DOES preach the wonderfulness and wholesomeness of consensual fairies. They even celebrate and encourage fairie-ism. In fact, there is no real difference bewteen atheism and what the Charch of England preaches, so what's the Dr.'s gripe?
Science cannot even begin to explain something so basic to human nature as why a child loves its mother, much less something as complex as the love between a creature and its Creator.
Science cannot even begin to explain something so basic to human nature as why a child loves its mother, much less something as complex as the love between a creature and its Creator.
The ev-psych crowd does believe that filial love, and other acts of love, fealty and altruism, can be explained by Hamilton's theory of kin selection. Some very plausible arguments have been fashioned in evolutionary psychology, and, IMHO, it is counter-productive not to give them their due. But it does not follow that just because natural selection may partially explain some behaviors that the great over-arching teleological mysteries are any closer to being solved than they were in the days before Darwin.
Hello, bro.
Government plans to expand the number of Church secondary schools are "evil", the eminent scientist Richard Dawkins said yesterday. He is leading a growing intellectual revolt against plans to reform comprehensives, which include a clear commitment to single-faith schools.
An intellectual revolt or revolting intellectual? As you have pointed out, it takes a certain lack of intellect to require religion keep out of "science" and to allow science to meddle in religion. Clintonesque.
But absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
Much food for thought in this fine essay, beckett. Thanks so much for posting it. best wishes, bb.
If I understand this article correctly, are the Anglican schools government run? (Or government-financed?) If so, it sure reveals a tangled jumble of muddled thinking on several sides!
There should be no government schools, of course. Certainly not government-owned religious schools! Dr Grayling's quote was the most cogent of the piece: "Why should an atheist taxpayer like me be forced to fund these schools? If I were to set up a school which taught belief in fairies and I wanted Government money no one would say yes."
But for Richard Dawkins to call more gov't religious schools "evil", specifically for this reason...
"The idea of expanding single-religion schools seems positively evil. Making the assumption that automatically children should be brought up in the religion of their parents, thereby increasing divisiveness in society is, I think, evil."... just shows that a clear-thinking political philosopher Dawkins ain't.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."Both are true, of course: The universe operates with blind indifference to us, and there is evil in the world.Richard Dawkins, "River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," 1995
and in this article he says:
"The idea of expanding single-religion schools seems positively evil. Making the assumption that automatically children should be brought up in the religion of their parents, thereby increasing divisiveness in society is, I think, evil."
What is it, Perfesser? Evil doesn't exist? Or it does?
- Tallhappy, post 13
Let's say you're walking along the sidewalk near an old brick bulding and an earthquake happens, dropping a ton of bricks on your head & killing you. Where's the evil? Are the bricks evil for falling on you? Is the earth's crust evil for moving around suddenly?
Of course they aren't! The earth moved and the bricks fell with "blind, pitiless indifference" to you.
But let's say you're walking along the sidewalk and a person decides to push the brick facade out so that the bricks will fall on you. Is that person evil?
Of course he is!
"Design", "purpose", "evil", and "good" are concepts that can only apply to thinking beings with free will. "The universe we observe" has no free will.
Is this hard to grasp, somehow?
But let's say you're walking along the sidewalk and a person decides to push the brick facade out so that the bricks will fall on you. Is that person evil?
Of course he is!
Why?
And, your comments are well written and articulate.
But your response is not really addressing Dawkin's quote and the observation rather obvious. I doubt even Dawkins thinks there is a large group of people who believe hurricanes or earthquakes are evil.
So back to the main issue, why would it be evil for someone to do what you described in your example?
I like the Einstein edition of Occam's Razor: "Things must be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler!" The better-written a popularizing article is without sacrificing accuracy, the better I like it. I'm as dependent as anybody upon the people who do that stuff.
I also think science should not be in the business of trying to decide theological questions. But the other side of that coin is that Henry Morris, Duane Gish, et. al. should butt out of science, even if it costs me a fun hobby arguing with the C side here on FR! (I can always argue with liberals, after all.)
the genome project indicates that absolutely nothing resembling evolution is going on in the human race at this time.
Please provide a cite for this claim:
the only moral law in nature, according to evolution, is the survival of the fittest.
Please provide a cite for this claim:
"What is it, Perfesser? Evil doesn't exist? Or it does?"
LOL tall,... You shouldn't confuse the perfesser with minor details like consistancy.
No government shouldn't fund religion - I think most religious people would agree with that. However I do think Dawkins should have been a little less bombastic in his comments.
I always get such a kick out of atheists who believe in evil ... LOL!
Did you read Tudge's piece in Post #31? I was directing your attention more to those remarks than to Dawkins' blunder (i.e., using the term "evil" to describe religious education, thereby implying the very system of morality he claims to deny, as I pointed out in Post #19).
I'm interested to learn if you agree with Tudge. And if so, to what degree----completely?----with qualifications?
Onel,
I believe that some caution is essential. Did not a similar situation occur in Hitler's Germany. Goebels won for a while until the entire nation was destroyed.
Godspeed, The Dilg
The clash is as Daniel Dennett describes it in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Orthodox Christians of the 19th century argued, as John Locke had done in the 17th, that intelligent beings could not be made except by an even more intelligent Creator already in place; but natural selection shows how, in principle, life and then intelligence can emerge from simple beginnings, with no overseer at all. But religion as a whole does not rest on that one piece of theology; and in general, given that religion is innately untestable, it remains outside the purlieus of science. There can be spats, but there is no mortal conflict in which to engage.
I certainly agree with this point. I'm not sure about the rest though. Yes scientists can be arrogant and snotty - so can everyone else. I'm not sure this is why people are so reluctant to accept the work of science. People have a strong tendancy to believe what makes them feel good - and science often upsets their apple carts.
You and I are actually not very far apart in our outlooks, VR. I think I just take the theological imponderables a little more seriously than you do.
Hey...the government is just like the phone company used to be; remember the bumper sticker? "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." The government doesn't have to do diddly squat about the schools, because they get your money no matter what, even if you pull your child from the public schools.
I'm curious. Where do you get information about Dawkins's political leanings from?
I think I just take the theological imponderables a little more seriously than you do.
Hah! That must be easy. "If it's imponderable, don't ponder it." That's my motto.
>I always get such a kick out of atheists who believe in >evil ... LOL!
Yes, you do.
If I understand this article correctly, are the Anglican schools government run? (Or government-financed?)
The Church of England is a part of the state.
No government shouldn't fund religion - I think most religious people would agree with that.
Most American religious people would.
the only moral law in nature, according to evolution, is the survival of the fittest.
Please provide a cite for this claim:
You could pick one. The article which was posted on the Drudge site would do. The basic finding was that there was no meaningful genetic difference between any two groups of people on this planet, and that the only difference between Germans and Zulus amounted to frequencies of genes which were present in both groups. That says no evolution is going on.
Or is that supposed to depend on what the definition of "is" is, somehow or other?
"...Dawkins' blunder (i.e., using the term "evil" to describe religious education, thereby implying the very system of morality he claims to deny..."
Put another way, Dawkins is behaving like the little girl who has to crawl up on her daddy's lap to slap him in the face. Interesting corner he's painted himself into, no? :)
Sorry, you had two posts sitting there which looked nearly identically alike, my previous response was the the one involving the human genome project. As to the statement about "survival of the fittest" being the "only moral law in nature", that is a perfectly logical deduction from Darwinian theory.
Try this: get onto www.hotbot.com, the strongest of the internet search engines, and do a double search on "survival of the fittest" and "natural law". One interesting item which turns up is a treatise on moral thinking going from Darwin to Nietzsche.
I thought I was the only one who'd noticed that (reply #20)... Good observation!
As to the statement about "survival of the fittest" being the "only moral law in nature", that is a perfectly logical deduction from Darwinian theory.
Here's a perfectly logical deduction from electrical theory: Tasers are holy objects, and virtue consists of zapping people with tasers. This is the only moral law in nature.
So back to the main issue, why would it be evil for someone to do what you described in your example?
Because someone has to make a choice to harm someone else. Something (an inanimate object) has no choice. Evil can only apply to an entity with free will, who can make a choice.
"The universe" as a whole has no choice, and that's why it shows us blind indifference. The universe (indeed the whole inanimate and subhuman world) is not evil, nor is it good. It just is - it has no choice.
So Dawkins' statement is absolutely correct. If Dawkins is wrong, then please tell me which Seattleite's sin brought the Wrath of God down upon us on this Ash Wednesday?
Put another way, Dawkins is behaving like the little girl who has to crawl up on her daddy's lap to slap him in the face. Interesting corner he's painted himself into, no? :)
You never responded to my post 38. Dawkins is saying that the natural, inanimate and subhuman world has no choice, no free will in what it does. That's why it isn't evil - it just is. You're looking too hard for a strawman to punch.
Either that, or answer my question to Tallhappy: Why did the earthquake decide to hit Seattle yesterday, Ash Wednesday, and was it evil for doing so?
"Both are true, of course: The universe operates with blind indifference to us, and there is evil in the world."
Are we or are we not a part of said universe? Are the actions we initiate towards one another part of the workings of said universe or not?
Either we are the product of your materialist universe, or we are not. Which is it, jenny?
You can't have it both ways.
"The universe" as a whole has no choice, and that's why it shows us blind indifference.
There you go, anthropomorphizing again...
If "it" has no choice, how can "it" show us anything, let alone "blind indifference?"
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
"If Dawkins is wrong, then please tell me which Seattleite's sin brought the Wrath of God down upon us on this Ash Wednesday?"
Yours?
Medved: As to the statement about "survival of the fittest" being the "only moral law in nature", that is a perfectly logical deduction from Darwinian theory.
Jenyp: Here's a perfectly logical deduction from electrical theory: Tasers are holy objects, and virtue consists of zapping people with tasers. This is the only moral law in nature.
You have to excuse jennyp. She's an atheist with a conscience (not that that's a bad thing, only that it renders her incapable of a logically consistent world view.)
There you go, anthropomorphizing again...
If "it" has no choice, how can "it" show us anything, let alone "blind indifference?"
AHEM, I'm the one who's anthropomorphizing??? You're the one who thinks the universe can be good or evil!
Good & evil are irrelevant to inanimate objects and living things without free will. That's all Dawkins is saying. It's obvious when you read Chap. 4 of River out of Eden, which the "blind indifference" quote is summing up.
Why is this point so hard for you to grasp? Do you blame the gun or the gunman?
Are we or are we not a part of said universe? Are the actions we initiate towards one another part of the workings of said universe or not?
You're trying to evade the issue by focusing on inessentials. It's a tactic of retreat. There's no shame in just admitting you were wrong. In fact, I'd respect you for it.
FWIW>> The top people in Microsoft (especially the departed Nathan Myhrvold) love Dawkins and have sponsored his visits and lectures to the Seattle area. I go along with some of what Dawkins and the sociobiologists say. At the same time, they can't explain everything and their parallel friends the evolutionists cannot explain everything, though they'll die trying
The fact that he's about as atheistic as one can get is not a good sign and woke me up to the insidiousness of sociobiology/evolutionary biology
I'm curious. Where do you get information about Dawkins's political leanings from?
Hi jejones. Got it (deduced it) from a lecture he gave sponsored by the London Guardian a couple years back entitled "Is Science Killing the Soul?" His comments in regard to The Soul of the White Ant (sorry I don't recall the name of the author of that work at the moment) clearly revealed a penchant for a type of political organization that we associate with a totalitarian society. I'm not specifically aware of Professor Dawkin's voting record. But people tend to vote their philosophies after all. Thanks for writing jejones. best wishes, bb.
Because someone has to make a choice to harm someone else.
Why is it wrong to harm someone else.
And, please read more carefully. I pointed out that what you said was not what Dawkins was saying, so your coment was phrased wrong. It should be what you mean, not what Dawkins means.
But I also pointed out that no one disagrees with the observations that hurricanes or earthquakes are not evil, and if Dawkin's was addressing that, he's arguing against a belief no one holds.
So, back to the bigger issue. Why is it wrong to harm someone else?
You're trying to evade the issue by focusing on inessentials.
No he's not.
You say the universe "just is" ... indifferent. Yet I thought you were an evolutionist who believed that human beings with free will happened to evolve both free will and conscience (like extra appendages) from the same indifferent life force that rusts iron and ripens corn.
It makes no sense that a product of some indifferent universe would end up greater than all the parts of the universe itself and possessed of free will as well as a conscience capable of distinguishing between moral and immoral acts.
It's impossible that human acts would have meaning in a meaningless universe.
It's impossible that human acts would have meaning in a meaningless universe.
Although this point, precisely, does account for the rank subjectivity and emotion attached to an atheist's always atomistic appreciation of "personal values".
I must agree with Dr. Grayling. By the same token, religious parents should not be forced to pay for their children to go to nonreligious schools. Children belong to their parents, who should educate them as they choose.
Me: Are we or are we not a part of said universe? Are the actions we initiate towards one another part of the workings of said universe or not?
You: You're trying to evade the issue by focusing on inessentials. It's a tactic of retreat. There's no shame in just admitting you were wrong. In fact, I'd respect you for it.
Hehehe. "Inessentials?!?" Nonessential or "inconsequential" are the appropriate terms you're looking for here. Nevertheless, the questions I posed are neither "inessential" nor irrelevant.
You said the universe has no choice but we do. We don't have any free will at all if we are the product of your materialist universe, jenny. You're simply deluding yourself. We are just the result of the programming of our genes. Just as a lion is not "evil" for devouring a lamb (only doing what he is instinctively programmed by his genes and evolution to do to survive) there is nothing evil in whatever actions we initiate towards one another. That's why Dawkins could write (the part you skipped) that:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
There is "no evil and no good" in what we do, either, only that which we do to survive. Ergo, to paint a picture of the materialist universe (of which Dawkins believes we are an integral part) as being neither evil nor good, means that we - as the product of such a universe - can be no more than said universe. We are simply what we are as programmed by the material which comprises our genes (the stuff of stars, as Carl Sagan once said.)
As I said, you can't have it both ways. Either we are the product of "blind physical forces and genetic replication" or we are not. And if we are, then you shouldn't complain when someone mistreats you or takes advantage of you. After all, they're not being "evil." They're just "being" what nature and evolution have made them.
I'm wrong? Hardly. "Inessential?" Nope. Cuts straight to the heart of the issue, all your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
"It's impossible that human acts would have meaning in a meaningless universe."
Jennyp is caught in the same logical inconsistency that environmentalist wackos are caught in, namely, that they will on the one hand concede that humankind is the product of natural forces (evolution) yet turn around and condemn humankind for causing the destruction of nature, as though we are not a part of that nature, too.
No one complains when an elephant destroys a tree by "tusk-rubbing" it, but "Gaia" help the logger that cuts down a tree to make more than just his life better.
but "Gaia" help the logger that cuts down a tree to make more than just his life better.
Lol ... all too true!
Boggles the mind, actually, the rank inconsistency of their arguments.
No wonder they specialize in ridicule as a rule. =)
Two scientists' argument that rape is a form of male reproductive behavior drew outcry from victims' advocates and sociologists yesterday who said they fear a trend toward using evolution as an excuse for behavior.
``It's like an age-old argument that men are not responsible for their choices,'' said Brenda Noel, director of public education at the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center.
Why shouldn't we use "evolution as an excuse for behavior?" After all,
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Why should men who rape be held to a higher standard than dogs who eat their own poop? Because some "victim" says so? Hmmm...No one seems to care when a lion eats a zebra to survive. Where are the victim rights' groups for zebras? Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation of lions who mercilessly kill harmless, helpless zebras?!?
Oh, the horror!!!
"We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the universe."
Peter Atkins
The Second Law
1984
Dawkins is just - in so many words - echoing the sentiments of Peter Atkins, who wrote The Second Law more than a decade before.
Dawkins is not writing in a philosophical vacuum, jenny. He is reflecting the sentiments of his atheist, sociobiological underpinnings.
Just to drive the point home, if the universe is not evil, and we are a product of a morally neutral universe, then we, by nature, cannot be evil, either. Dawkins is being a hypocrite in the extreme to deny evil in the universe (of which we are a product and a part) and then decry it in those with whom he disagrees politically and religiously.
He can't have it both ways, either.
Main Entry: ma·te·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: m&-'tir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 17481 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter
Webster's On-line
If physical matter is all that matters, then how we treat each other doesn't. Such is the logical implication of materialism.
If you don't believe this enough to actually put such a world view into practice, then thank the God in whom you would otherwise deny.
Dawkins is being a hypocrite in the extreme to deny evil in the universe
_____________________________________
Many atheists have a big problem giving evil it's due. Evil and darkness are powerful forces on earth. Even pagans at least have this much figured out
If physical matter is all that matters, then how we treat each other doesn't. Such is the logical implication of materialism.
YUP!!!
If you don't believe this enough to actually put such a world view into practice, then thank the God in whom you would otherwise deny.
Atheists and libertarians are merely coasting on the moral and ethical capital built up by generations of G_d fearing Americans. They should be grateful to their more religious American forefathers for making such a nice place for them to live in and for defending this nation in time of war
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you
won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we
observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no
design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like a libertarian atheist call to arms. A pretty cold universe where dirt is shoveled over your grave and that is it for you....finito!
I like some of what Dawkins says. There is a lot of hard wiring in the human brain that sociobiology understands that feminists, socialists, communists, libertarians do not. And the sociobiology view of life, even human life, that it exists only to perpetuate itself by whatever means possible is also true from a certain vantage point. Sociobiology's mistake is to make this the only vantage point and to deny G_d's place and man's place in the universe
Here is a recent letter to the editor that Dawkins wrote:
The Editor
The Independent
London
Sir: Not for the first time, I am represented as more extreme than I really am ("Dawkins leads atheist revolt against 'evil' church schools", and Leading Article, 24 February). Even the view I actually hold -- that the state should not support religious schools and should open no new ones -- goes less far than the Constitution of the most religiose nation in the western world.
In the article to which you were presumably referring, published in the previous day's
issue of the Times Educational Supplement
(www.tes.co.uk/this_weeks_edition/opinion/story.asp?id=4402) I simply pointed out that,
if we hadn't become historically habituated to the idea, we'd find it bizarre to classify small
children by their inherited cosmological and ethical opinions.
We'd be aghast at the branding of "Pro-Euro children" or "Neo-Keynesian children", on the basis of their parents' economic opinions. We do not speak of, let alone separately educate, "Tory children" and "Labour children". We presume that children either are too young to know what they think, or if old enough might disagree with their parents. Why, then, do we accept, without a murmur, the existence and separate education of "Catholic children", "Protestant children", "Jewish children" and "Muslim children"?
Of course it is very convenient for the religions that we do. Indeed, it is probably the main reason for their continued existence.
RICHARD DAWKINS Oxford
Great catch. Thanks for posting that. How fascinating that Dawkins neither confirmed nor denied the use of the term "evil." He decided, I suppose, that ignoring the remark was his only choice, since it is an indefensible word according to his personal moral philosophy. Just the same, the letter shows that he is squirming and backtracking a bit. He knows he messed up.
Dawkins is an odd fellow. He has rakish good looks and a lot of intelligence. He is a star in Britain. Life has been good to him. But whenever he opens his mouth (I have seen him speak several times) anger and negativity inevitably comes out along with all the encyclopedic knowledge. He is one p***** off dude. I think to understand his views on religion one must find the source of his anger.
Why, then, do we accept, without a murmur, the existence and separate education of "Catholic children", "Protestant children", "Jewish children" and "Muslim children"?
Of course it is very convenient for the religions that we do. Indeed, it is probably the main reason for their continued existence.
RICHARD DAWKINS Oxford
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hahahahaah
Is this man full of himself or what? Does big noise Dawkins have any
better ideas? NO!
He's been hanging around with his sycophants too much. Ironically, I'm sure Dawkins
in a "god" himself in the circles he travels.
It's impossible that human acts would have meaning in a meaningless universe.
I always ask this when someone mentions this - what do you mean by "meaning" here? If you mean that "meaning" means that some Cosmic Notetaker is writing down what you do and is going to give you reward points for a round-trip ticket to Paradise - then no, human acts don't have meaning. Obviously, within the context of a human experience, our acts do have meaning.
You've done fairly well.
Well ... I suppose it's the difference between being an animal and knowing that the only reason you exist is because your parents followed their instincts ... rutted in season, fed you until you were on your own and left you to eat and fight and frolic until some accident or natural death or bit of scientific research left you a corpse.
I'm not a big fan of the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" concept but believe that -- just as my decision to wed, start a family and have children imparts some meaning to my actions and my unconditional love -- I was created for a purpose that, given the scope of the Divine and my being endowed with free will and conscience, may well transcend the accidents--if not the substance--of my Being.
You've done fairly well.
Fix it?
I personally don't feel the need to have been created for some purpose because I don't like the idea that the universe is indifferent to me. I kind of understand the concept, but don't see as necessary to leading a fufilling life. All I need is for me to find meaning in the things that I do.
This fish is sated, angler.
Try another.
I personally don't feel the need to have been created for some purpose because I don't like the idea that the universe is indifferent to me.
This is actually one of the most stunning insights I've ever had. Thanks.
The fact that what so many perceive as "indifference" is actually the providence (but sometimes tragedy) of a world which operates by perfectly consistent natural and natural moral laws in which we are free -- to a great extent -- to determine our own destiny.
That regularity of natural and moral law, our freedom (to explore, to harness the universe) and the treasure that is human intellectual capacity suggests to me exactly the opposite of indifference. We are gifted beyond compare in all creation.
For me, indifference only comes in with man's inhumanity to man. While it would be cool to have God come in and rout the Nazis for us, it would certainly be a trespass of essential human free will. (That's why it's our OBLIGATION to protect the weak, speak up for the oppressed, take care of the poor, punish transgressions and kill aggressors.)
I kind of understand the concept, but don't see as necessary to leading a fufilling life. All I need is for me to find meaning in the things that I do.
Quite frankly, the idea I was created for a purpose is often a perplexing and troublesome thought. (I have no kids, no career, I'm not a philanthropist, I don't think I've ever saved anyone's life ... what could POSSIBLY be the purpose in me I wonder?!?)
But that's a matter of trust, I guess. Like knowing your parents mean it when they say they love you and are proud of you even if you've nothing particular in the way of accomplishments to relate at family reunions. =)
I understand your point about finding the meaning for yourself. That's important and I think plenty of folks never get there.
It's just that one's appreciation of the little things in one's own life deepens with the realization one is partaking of a cosmic Good and being true to the best there is of one's human nature.
I guess the reason I think this point is important for me is that I fear most the continued atomization of mankind. In a "divide and conquer" sort of fashion, those that tell us it's "to each His Own" are reducing to equally meaningless the "personal values" of our individual lives.
These truly human bits of individual wisdom and experience then come in a decided second to the Public Virtues as defined by the Conditioners who influence the courts, politicians and Peer Groups in corporate governance or other collectives.
If we do not recognize the enduring truth of our human nature and commonality of our human experience (regardless of each person's ability or inclination to live a just or "meaningful" life), I think we run the risk of deconstructing human nature and leaving ourselves open to manhandling by Utopians of all stripes ... religious, political, corporate or what have you.
Thanks again Garbanzo. I know we don't see eye to eye on a lot but I learn a great deal chatting over the Razor wire with you =)
This is another "Nieblunglied" for the evolution crowd, referring once again to the German folktale that was inspired by the destruction of the Burgundian army by Roman general Flavius Aetius. They won't give up, though, no matter how many times they get humiliated.
If we do not recognize the enduring truth of our human nature and commonality of our human experience (regardless of each person's ability or inclination to live a just or "meaningful" life), I think we run the risk of deconstructing human nature and leaving ourselves open to manhandling by Utopians of all stripes ... religious, political, corporate or what have you.
I agree with this - and this more or less forms the basis of Rand's thoughts. Rand rejected the idea of meaning coming from outside of man but left as fundamental the value of man as a thinking being and if anything championed the human spirit - against the deconstructors of mankind.
I think we differ on how human nature came about - but we definitely agree on that it exists now.
"Atheists and libertarians are merely coasting on the moral and ethical capital built up by generations of G_d fearing Americans. They should be grateful to their more religious American forefathers for making such a nice place for them to live in and for defending this nation in time of war."
It's fairly comfortable for atheists and materialists to sit in their nice homes swilling their expensive wines and gnoshing on imported cheeses, to talk of how this country would be better off without religious Jews and Christians - all the while knowing that they'll never know what the country would be like as long as God-fearing, freedom-loving Jews and Christians are around to protect them in their nice homes, while they swill expensive wines and gnosh on imported cheeses.
As I wrote just a few posts back, such are the kind of people that have to climb on Judeo-Christian morality's lap to slap it in the face.
Later...
Why, then, do we accept, without a murmur, the existence and separate education of "Catholic children", "Protestant children", "Jewish children" and "Muslim children"?
Of course it is very convenient for the religions that we do. Indeed, it is probably the main reason for their continued existence.
Wait! Lemme' guess! Now Dawkins is stating that the reason religious schools (and the religions that support them) exist is because he and his kind don't complain about their existence?!?!?
Man, is this guy way over the top, or what?!? Can we say "L-O-S-E-R?"
What gall. What hubris! What a flaming idiot! If 300 years of Roman persecution didn't destroy Christianity, does he really think his b!tching about it will?!?!?
And this is the guy that other evols look up to?!?!? Sure explains alot!
"They won't give up, though, no matter how many times they get humiliated."
Sad, but true.
<sigh>
Quite frankly, the idea I was created for a purpose is often a perplexing and troublesome thought. (I have no kids, no career, I'm not a philanthropist, I don't think I've ever saved anyone's life ... what could POSSIBLY be the purpose in me I wonder?!?)
You make those who read what you write think, and you always make me smile. :)
We each have a purpose, even if we spend most of our lives finding what that purpose is. Each life is not an island, but currents in the air. Are we a cool, gentle breeze, or a mighty, rushing wind? Sometimes, we can't tell what effect we have on others, but those we affect can tell. Our purpose - if nothing else - is to make the world a better place for our having been here. If this is how you do it, then do it with passion.
Believe me, you are affecting other people here and where you live, whether you know it or not. :)
Later...
We'll talk some more. Perhaps (on the sly, with no interference) we might come to some understanding of the chasm, if any, that exist between the either/or that is atheist and militant atheist as well as Ayn Rand and a skeptic like me who believe she let emotion ride at the exact wrong critical moment of judgment.
All the best,
Chris.
Ah ... I took one last look at the screen before wrapping my knee and heading across the street.
If you've a purpose, please include the fact you turned me on to Human Life as essentially PRECIOUS.
It's the "never say DIE" in me to this day (and ever after).
With love,
Chris.
Judy Latour bump.
You said the universe has no choice but we do. We don't have any free will at all if we are the product of your materialist universe, jenny. You're simply deluding yourself.
That's your a-priori assertion. But you still haven't shown any evidence why that should be true nor axiomatic. It's just like the creationist assertion that the information content of a genome cannot increase thru mutations - observed gene duplications & lateral transfers notwithstanding.
We are just the result of the programming of our genes. Just as a lion is not "evil" for devouring a lamb (only doing what he is instinctively programmed by his genes and evolution to do to survive) there is nothing evil in whatever actions we initiate towards one another.
Strawman. A lion's genes programmed it to have a small brain for its body size, and a smaller portion still in the form of a cerebrum. Our bodies were programmed to develop much larger brains for our size, and a much bigger portion of them as cerebrums vs. cerebellums. ("cerebra vs. cerebella"?) That's why we have free will: We have the machinery that's able to contemplate our actions on a very abstract level; and almost no instinctual, automatic knowledge of what to do with our lives. A lion doesn't have that kind of freedom (or necessity) of thought. The intellectual life of a lion (& therefore its moral life) is very, very simple. In the lion's case, too simple for us to assign guilt to it.
That's why Dawkins could write (the part you skipped) that:
I won't quote the whole chapter of which that quote is the conclusion, so you'll have to trust me on this: The chapter tries to explain why we see certain patterns in living things. Why there always tends to be a 50-50 ratio between males & females, even in species where it produces large inefficiencies of resource usage. Why Pacific salmon only return from several years in the ocean to spawn once in their lives & then die, while Atlantic salmon get to play out the cycle several times before dying. Why older people's bodies slowly break down, and why Huntington's chorea attacks older people but never younger people."In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
The chapter also examines why some of these patterns are so cruel:
Cheetahs give every indication of being superbly designed for something, and it should be easy enough to reverse-engineer them and work out their utility function. They appear to be well designed to kill antelopes. ... [A cheetah's features] are all precisely what we should expect if God's purpose in designing cheetahs was to maximize deaths among antelopes. Conversely, if we reverse-engineer an antelope we find equally impressive evidence of design for precisely the opposite end: the survival of antelopes and starvation among cheetahs. It is as though cheetahs had been designed by one deity and antelopes by a rival deity. Alternatively, if there is only one Creator who made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah and the gazelle, what is He playing at? Is He a sadist who enjoys spectator blood sports? Is He trying to avoid overpopulation in the mammals of Africa? Is He maneuvering to maximize David Attenborough's television ratings? These are all intelligible utility functions that might have turned out to be true. In fact, of course, they are all completely wrong. ...Dawkins' answer: It only makes sense if you look at genes as selfish replicators and organisms as their tools for replication.
- River out of Eden, pg 105
To return to this chapter's pessimistic beginning, when the utility function - that which is being maximized - is DNA survival, this is not a recipie for happiness. So long as DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt in the process. It is better for the genes of Darwin's ichneumon wasp that the caterpillar should be alive, and therefore fresh, when it is eaten, no matter what the cost in suffering. Genes don't care about suffering, because they don't care about anything.Then he gets philosophical:If Nature were kind, she would at least make the minor concession of anesthetizing caterpillars before they are eaten alive from within. But Nature is neither kind nor unkind. She is neither against suffering nor for it. Nature is not interested one way or the other in suffering, unless it affects the survival of DNA. ...
- Eden, pg 131
Theologians worry away at the "problem of evil" and a related "problem of suffering". [A school bus full of Catholic kids crashed & many died, and people asked how could a loving, all-powerful God allow it to happen.] [O]ne priest's reply: "The simple answer is that we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of a crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just electrons, there would be no problem of suffering."Why do you think an antelope's life ends so gruesomely? Since you're a creationist, why did God decide that most all antelopes should suffer such a painful and terrifying end? What does God have against antelopes?On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
- Eden, 132-133
There is "no evil and no good" in what we do, either, only that which we do to survive. Ergo, to paint a picture of the materialist universe (of which Dawkins believes we are an integral part) as being neither evil nor good, means that we - as the product of such a universe - can be no more than said universe. We are simply what we are as programmed by the material which comprises our genes (the stuff of stars, as Carl Sagan once said.)
Sorry, but Dawkins is not saying what you want him to be saying. As I've shown above, Dawkins was referring to nonthinking accidents & nonthinking DNA & nonthinking natural selection and nonthinking utility functions unthinkingly maximizing things that us thinking beings can see are either inefficient or downright tragic.
OK, this is our fundamental disagreement. You're equating "more than" with "more intelligent than". You're trying to claim that there's some sort of theoretical barrier to an entity giving rise to another entity that's more intelligent than itself. As I said, that's an assertion you haven't given any evidence for, nor shown why it should be taken as an axiom - you just assert it.
I've seen the assertion made by several creationists in these threads before, and we're supposed to be impressed by its self-evident truth. But I don't think there's any there there. Show me why I'm wrong not to be impressed.
Me: You said the universe has no choice but we do. We don't have any free will at all if we are the product of your materialist universe, jenny. You're simply deluding yourself.
You: That's your a-priori assertion. But you still haven't shown any evidence why that should be true nor axiomatic. It's just like the creationist assertion that the information content of a genome cannot increase thru mutations - observed gene duplications & lateral transfers notwithstanding.
With regard to gene duplication tell me, how many bytes of new, usable data are added to a CD that's duplicated? How many notes are added to a cassette tape of music that's copied. Bytes, or notes, or words on a page - like genes - represent information. Duplication in any context doesn't add information, else it wouldn't be duplication. You don't get a Shakespearean Sonnet by running the Gettysburg Address through the photocopier at work thousands of times. In fact, repeated duplications of duplicates produces more noise than "signal" (information.) In other words, information is lost through duplication, not gained.
I, for one, am sick and tired of your oft repeated "a priori" assertion that genes - which are information bearing structures - are somehow able to add information through duplication. The only explanation is that it must be a miracle! (But science doesn't account for such now, does it?)
But I digress. If the universe is morally neutral matter and energy (nothing but molecules in motion) and we are composed of the stuff that comprises the universe, (nothing but molecules in motion) then we are governed by the same "blind, physical forces" that control every other moving molecule in the universe. There is no free will, because every fiber of our being is conditioned to respond to our environment. There is no good or evil, because being mere matter - just like the rest of the universe - we possess the same characteristics in common with every other bit of mere matter that comprises the universe, from the biggest star to the smallest bacterium. We are merely very small cogs in a grand cosmic wheel: mere matter in motion obeying physical laws and forces that were laid down when the universe itself came into existence.
Axiomatically speaking, if we are composed solely of "the stuff of stars," then we can - by definition - be no more or less moral than the stuff of which we are made or the material universe that spawned us. Ergo, to speak of matter - any matter - as having a choice is ridiculous on its face. Lions don't have choices. Antelopes don't have choices. Humans don't have choices. We're just a different breed of animal spawned by this material universe and conditioned by the laws of physics, chemistry, and nature to respond to our environment.
You may have deluded yourself into thinking that your brain equips you with the tools to make rational, meaningful choices in an otherwise meaningless universe, but in the end such choices amount to little more than a fish deciding which of the numerous bugs, littering the surface of its pond, it will eat. In fact, not only is the brain itself made of the same material that comprises all other matter in the universe, it isn't even unique! All animals have brains (as even you affirm) and so the only difference that exists between all the various brains is the degree to which they allow animals to contemplate their own navels. Humans, having larger brains than lions, can spend far more time meditating on their place in the universe, and the "choices" they make, yet like the lion, all our brains really allow us to do is to scratch out our existence, one day to the next, with survival being both our highest goal and our greatest reward.
Given that you are an atheist, and that you don't believe in anything more than this material universe and all that it encompasses, I can only wonder why you so staunchly reject the logical ramifications of materialism. Why you pay lip service to materialism with just about every word you write here, but reject it as guiding philosophy, indicates that you are either:
Believe it or not, I don't believe you are purposely trying to mislead anybody. Ergo, I don't think you are evil for believing what you do. I can only conclude that you have never really logically considered the ramifications of your world view. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you change your beliefs, but something about the materialist world view I've outlined above makes you terribly uncomfortable. If you're going to call yourself an atheist/materialist, you should at least strive to understand what such a world view logically encompasses. If not, then perhaps you ought to consider dropping any pretense you claim to make in calling yourself an atheist.
You do, after all, have a god jenny, but the one you worship is too small to save you from anything.
The problem for them is: THEY KEEP GETTING SCREWED BY THEIR OWN GUYS! Dawkins and Darwin both attributed intelligent design to "natural selection," and now Dawkins claims evil is real. The key to this whole thing is to read their material with cold logic and critical reasoning.
Thank you for the thoughtful & clear reply. (Probably clearer than I've been!)...
With regard to gene duplication tell me, how many bytes of new, usable data are added to a CD that's duplicated? How many notes are added to a cassette tape of music that's copied. Bytes, or notes, or words on a page - like genes - represent information. Duplication in any context doesn't add information, else it wouldn't be duplication.
Strictly speaking, a duplication adds one bit of complexity to the data. But CDs & cassette tapes don't drive the creation of new machines like DNA does. And no, if it was a badly-duplicated CD-ROM containing the blueprint of a complex machine the analogy still would not hold. The genetic code has much more room for slop than, say, an AutoCAD file.
... I, for one, am sick and tired of your oft repeated "a priori" assertion that genes - which are information bearing structures - are somehow able to add information through duplication. The only explanation is that it must be a miracle! (But science doesn't account for such now, does it?)
A miracle??? Do you really deny that the hemoglobin family of genes evolved from a single hemoglobin gene thru duplication & mutation? Or the family of serine proteases that make up the blood clotting cascade? It's a well-studied phenomenon. It clearly happens. And in those cases it definitely does increase the complexity of a working system, so it does, by any definition, increase information.
So that's the first fundamental disagreement. I believe that information increase is possible & happens often in biology, because the evidence says so.
But I digress. If the universe is morally neutral matter and energy (nothing but molecules in motion) and we are composed of the stuff that comprises the universe, (nothing but molecules in motion) then we are governed by the same "blind, physical forces" that control every other moving molecule in the universe. There is no free will, because every fiber of our being is conditioned to respond to our environment. There is no good or evil, because being mere matter - just like the rest of the universe - we possess the same characteristics in common with every other bit of mere matter that comprises the universe, from the biggest star to the smallest bacterium. We are merely very small cogs in a grand cosmic wheel: mere matter in motion obeying physical laws and forces that were laid down when the universe itself came into existence.
Either we're living in a billiard-ball universe, or quantum indeterminacy provides enough randomness for the future to be not completely predictable even in theory. But even if we are living in a true billiard-ball universe, there are so many billiard balls interacting, in so many edge-of-chaos arrangements, the predictability is essentially the same. IOW, either we really do have real honest-to-goodness free will or it's so close an approximation of it we'll never know we don't in a million years.
Axiomatically speaking, if we are composed solely of "the stuff of stars," then we can - by definition - be no more or less moral than the stuff of which we are made or the material universe that spawned us. ...
I don't understand this claim. I can see where we can be no "more" than the thing that spawned us, in several senses:
Your claim that we can't be more moral than our component parts taken separately is like saying we can't be more intelligent than our component parts, or louder than our component parts, or have more of an effect on the world than our component parts.
We are synergistic systems. Depending on how the whole is organized, it definitely can become "more" than the sum of its parts. It's the difference between a living person and a dead person. A living person holding an electric heater that's turned off might process the same calories of energy as a dead person holding the same heater that's turned on, but the effect is vastly different.
You may have deluded yourself into thinking that your brain equips you with the tools to make rational, meaningful choices in an otherwise meaningless universe, but in the end such choices amount to little more than a fish deciding which of the numerous bugs, littering the surface of its pond, it will eat. ... the only difference that exists between all the various brains is the degree to which they allow animals to contemplate their own navels. Humans, having larger brains than lions, can spend far more time meditating on their place in the universe, and the "choices" they make, yet like the lion, all our brains really allow us to do is to scratch out our existence, one day to the next, with survival being both our highest goal and our greatest reward.
Oh come on! I know you don't think that abstract thought (which you equated to contemplating one's navel!) has had trivial effects on the quality and quantity of our lives. Philosophy (systematic abstract thought), especially moral philosophy, makes all the difference to whether human societies are successful & life-affirming, or disastrous hellholes.
That is true for one simple reason: Humans' minds are fundamentally different from lions' minds. We're overwhelmingly generalist abstract thinkers and lions are overwhelmingly instinct-driven concrete thinkers (as you seem to grudgingly agree above). Lions don't need philosophy, and they can't do philosophy anyway. But in order for you to support your belief that my view fundamentally denigrates humanity, you had to deny that this difference exists. (See philosophy-as-navel-gazing above.) Rational thought itself depends on being able to see important differences, and your argument badly violates that here.
Given that you are an atheist, and that you don't believe in anything more than this material universe and all that it encompasses, I can only wonder why you so staunchly reject the logical ramifications of materialism. ... I can only conclude that you have never really logically considered the ramifications of your world view. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you change your beliefs, but something about the materialist world view I've outlined above makes you terribly uncomfortable.
I can understand why you think I should have a problem, given your assumptions, but as you can see I think your argument is severely broken at the foundations in two places. So your conclusions about the fundamental contradictions I should be heading towards are wildly wrong.
BTW, I don't consider myself a "materialist". As I understand it, a materialist denies or denigrates the existence or at least the efficacy of consciousness or morality, like you think I should be doing. Objectivism happily recognizes that consciousness & rational thought are activities that are every bit as real as the atoms which make up the brain. They're just more abstract entities than the atoms themselves. Objectivists consider this dichotomy between matter & thought that you're buying into as a false dichotomy. (Basically what I've been arguing for here.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |