• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are you a secularist

Lorentz said:
Assuming you are a human being, I'm 99.999% confident you too hold baseless and irrational beliefs. I surely do, even though I'm not aware which ones they are.
Click to expand...

One of your baseless and irrational beliefs is that everyone has baseless and irrational beliefs.
 
"Everyone has irrational beliefs, therefore no one can hold anyone else to any intellectual standards, therefore Woo."
 
Lorentz said:
Assuming you are a human being, I'm 99.999% confident you too hold baseless and irrational beliefs. I surely do, even though I'm not aware which ones they are.
Click to expand...
If you don't know what they are, then your 99.999% confidence is a baseless and irrational belief.

Waitaminute... :confused:
 
stevea said:
It's perfectly coherent to believe in some religion and also believe in the principle that the state should not reflect any religion. I imagine that most minority religions would prefer secularism. This requires no intellectual dishonestly.
Click to expand...
No, but that doesn't relate in any way to my post. However, belief in religion is, as I noted, based on ignorance, irrationality, or both.
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
So religious beliefs are often not falsifiable claims and therefore cannot be the subject of scientific investigation.
Click to expand...
Just to address this specific point: Yes, we are all aware of this. We can't reject claims of pure nonsense using science. We reject them simply because they are nonsense.

If you believe that the Moon really is made of cheese - but only when no-one is looking - then we can't prove that you're wrong, but you're still nuts, and we will ignore you.
 
There's a massive difference between simply being wrong about something (which yes everyone is occassionally) and being proudly, smugly, and pretentiously wrong on purpose and treating the method via which you came to be wrong as noble and positive and therefore making no effort to identify or correct the things you are wrong about.
 
Last edited:
Part of this issue relates to the non overlapping magisteria debate i.e. whether science and religion can happily coexist. Apart from the highly effective demolition job that Jerry Coyne and others have done on the accomodationist approach, let's take a real World example.

Perhaps the best is in the cases of stem cell research, birth control and abortion. The problem I see with any substantial figure in the field of science holding and promoting religious views is that they are simply in no position to challenge another faith based stance. If someone says they oppose one of the above, then Collins is entirely constrained from telling them they are wrong.

The "my faith is better than your faith" argument simply cannot and does not wash.
 
Last edited:
The other problem with the "Well there's a real world and a Woo world and everything's peachy as long as we keep them seperate argument" is for some reason everyone who makes that argument seems to think Woo gets to be the side that decides where the line is.

Most of the time the argument seems to boil down to "Science should only get to make statements about things that Woo allows it to."

The absurdity of allowing the side which has literally never been right about anything ever to decide what opinions the side which has literally given us the only right answers about anything ever gets to have is rather high.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
The other problem with the "Well there's a real world and a Woo world and everything's peachy as long as we keep them seperate argument" is for some reason everyone who makes that argument seems to think Woo gets to be the side that decides where the line is.

Most of the time the argument seems to boil down to "Science should only get to make statements about things that Woo allows it to."
Click to expand...
But that isn't it at all. It staggers my mind that Gould has been criticized as an "accommodationist" on his idea of NOMA, as though he was trying to protect religion. Gould defines NOMA as "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."

In other words, as soon as we talk about the "empirical realm" -- the natural universe -- we should defer to science. How any scientist can object to this I don't know, at least on the science side. Some treat NOMA as though it states that scientists shouldn't criticize Young Earth Creationists, but in fact it is the complete opposite to that.
 
Last edited:
Dubious Dick said:
Part of this issue relates to the non overlapping magisteria debate i.e. whether science and religion can happily coexist. Apart from the highly effective demolition job that Jerry Coyne and others have done on the accomodationist approach, let's take a real World example.

Perhaps the best is in the cases of stem cell research, birth control and abortion. The problem I see with any substantial figure in the field of science holding and promoting religious views is that they are simply in no position to challenge another faith based stance. If someone says they oppose one of the above, then Collins is entirely constrained from telling them they are wrong.

The "my faith is better than your faith" argument simply cannot and does not wash.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Why is this a problem with NOMA? The science of embryonic stem cell research is clear; the moral dimension (whether embryos should be considered 'alive') is under debate. I think the debate over whether testing using embryos should be allowed is part of the 'religion' side, under the topic of human rights. Similarly abortion and birth control. (I'm in favor of all three btw, because I believe that human life and human rights begins near birth -- which is a decision not based on science, afaik.)
 
Last edited:
GDon said:
But that isn't it at all. It staggers my mind that Gould has been criticized as an "accommodationist" on his idea of NOMA, as though he was trying to protect religion. Gould defines NOMA as "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."

In other words, as soon as we talk about the "empirical realm" -- the natural universe -- we should defer to science. How any scientist can object to this I don't know, at least on the science side. Some treat NOMA as though it states that scientists shouldn't criticize Young Earth Creationists, but in fact it is the complete opposite to that.
Click to expand...


Do you live in a universe that isn't a the natural one?
 
Okay, let us play black and white. I will be honest, it is never black and white, but for the purpose of this I will turn it into black and white.
There are only two possible kinds of worldviews:
  • Science
  • Religion
If you think that you are irrational. It is that simple according to the rules of the game that you guys use yourself. If someone, including you, I or anybody else, makes a claim about reality, he/she must give evidence for that claim.
There is no evidence that there are only 2 kinds of worldviews. It is simple to understand this, you can have 2 non-religious people who can agree over what e.g. property rights are. I.e. they are not religious but they have different worldviews for which one must be false according to logic. A property right can't be and not be in the same sense and at the same time and place.

It is not just about science versus religion, it is about ethical authority. With what authority can you claim something about another human and his/her behavior. Religious people are not the only ones, which claim objective authority over other humans. You can also find those within politics, philosophy and science.

You don't want other people to claim authority over you, where they don't have it, right?!!! Fair enough, neither do I. Yet some of you do it yourself. You claim that you have evidence for all that you claim, but the problem is there is not objective and scientific evidence for normative claims of any kind. Yet using science some of you can give evidence that religious people ought to be tested for whether they are rational enough to do science. The problem is that there is no objective and/or scientific evidence for the above ought. If you think that the fact that we ought to... in any variant of ought can be explained with objective and/or scientific evidence, then you are irrational. You are irrational, because you can't give any objective and/or scientific evidence for any moral/ethical normative claims. That is not how reality works.

So be honest with yourself - do you actually think that you can using only logic, rationality, science and objective evidence when you explain all of reality including your own being? If you think that, you are irrational, because you have no evidence for that according to your own rule of logic, rationality, science and objective evidence. It is that simple.
A part of a reality is objective, another part is intersubjective and yet another part is subjective to the individual. And you can't use objective evidence on something, which is not objective. That is a contradiction. You can only demand objective evidence for that part of reality, which is objective.
The rule is not that objective evidence is better!!! In part because better is subjective.

Rather you ought to demand objective evidence for that which is objective and only accept subjective claims for that which is subjective. The moment we turn into an intersubjective we, objective stops being useful. We ought to... is an intersubjective claim for which there are only subjective justification possible for that ought. If you in any shape or form think you can do that with objective evidence in any form, you are irrational. You functionally commit the following contradiction - you will claim something is not dependent on your thinking for which it is dependent on your thinking. Any real life ought is a cognitive choice between 2 or more possible way of thinking and science doesn't work on that, because it is not observer independent.

Forget for a moment religion and stop treating it as special in any kind, shape or form. Whether it be negative or positive, and go wider - classify all kinds of moral/ethical normative claims as to whether the person does so objectively or subjectively. The moment someone claims objective authority over reality, that person is claiming objective authority over YOU!!!

So I don't care whether you are religious or not. I care with what authority you claim you can describe and prescribe reality. Further I don't care whether you are rational, irrational or arational. I just want to know if you understand the difference between objective, intersubjective and subjective when it comes to ethics.

With regards
 
GDon said:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Why is this a problem with NOMA? The science of embryonic stem cell research is clear; the moral dimension (whether embryos should be considered 'alive') is under debate. I think the debate over whether testing using embryos should be allowed is part of the 'religion' side, under the topic of human rights. Similarly abortion and birth control. (I'm in favor of all three btw, because I believe that human life and human rights begins near birth -- which is a decision not based on science, afaik.)
Click to expand...

Yes, and I think we could argue that animal testing, or conducting experiments on human beings without their consent could also be seen as being about ethics which is to say that no matter what the science is, it still comes down to a matter of values, and that is a problem about which secularists can have reasonable disagreements.
 
tsig said:
Do you live in a universe that isn't a the natural one?
Click to expand...

Yes, in this natural universe ethics/morality is subjective and science has no authority over that which is subjective. It only deals with the objective, the observer independent part of reality. But all of reality is not independent of you, because you are not independent of you.
 
GDon said:
But that isn't it at all. It staggers my mind that Gould has been criticized as an "accommodationist" on his idea of NOMA, as though he was trying to protect religion. Gould defines NOMA as "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."
Click to expand...
The problem is that this is complete garbage. Valid questions of meaning and moral value are scientifically answerable. The reason most questions of meaning and moral value aren't scientifically answerable is that they're not valid - they are not answerable by any means.
 
GDon said:
Gould defines NOMA as "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."
Click to expand...

Which, with all respect to the truely great man that Gould was, is absolute crap.

"Morals" are no some special subcategory of knowledge that operates under completely different rules.

Morality is just another objective opinion. A "moral" is an opinion about the well being of a conscious creature. That's all. This mythology that Woo Slingers have cultivated around morality and the apologetics that good people like Gould and many others have bought into is dangerous and highly anti-intellectual.

"Meaning of Life" isn't even a real thing. It's an excellent Monty Python film and a half decent country song, nothing more.

In other words, as soon as we talk about the "empirical realm" -- the natural universe -- we should defer to science. How any scientist can object to this I don't know, at least on the science side. Some treat NOMA as though it states that scientists shouldn't criticize Young Earth Creationists, but in fact it is the complete opposite to that.
Click to expand...

When we talk about "the emperical realm" we are talking about the only thing that actually exists and actually matters.

There's the Emperical Realm and there's out beyond the event horizon of the formless. There's not this great gray area between reality and Woo. There's one or the other.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So be honest with yourself - do you actually think that you can using only logic, rationality, science and objective evidence when you explain all of reality including your own being?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's either that or Woo.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Okay, let us play black and white. I will be honest, it is never black and white, but for the purpose of this I will turn it into black and white.
There are only two possible kinds of worldviews:
  • Science
  • Religion
If you think that you are irrational. It is that simple according to the rules of the game that you guys use yourself. If someone, including you, I or anybody else, makes a claim about reality, he/she must give evidence for that claim.
There is no evidence that there are only 2 kinds of worldviews. It is simple to understand this, you can have 2 non-religious people who can agree over what e.g. property rights are. I.e. they are not religious but they have different worldviews for which one must be false according to logic. A property right can't be and not be in the same sense and at the same time and place.

It is not just about science versus religion, it is about ethical authority. With what authority can you claim something about another human and his/her behavior. Religious people are not the only ones, which claim objective authority over other humans. You can also find those within politics, philosophy and science.

You don't want other people to claim authority over you, where they don't have it, right?!!! Fair enough, neither do I. Yet some of you do it yourself. You claim that you have evidence for all that you claim, but the problem is there is not objective and scientific evidence for normative claims of any kind. Yet using science some of you can give evidence that religious people ought to be tested for whether they are rational enough to do science. The problem is that there is no objective and/or scientific evidence for the above ought. If you think that the fact that we ought to... in any variant of ought can be explained with objective and/or scientific evidence, then you are irrational. You are irrational, because you can't give any objective and/or scientific evidence for any moral/ethical normative claims. That is not how reality works.

So be honest with yourself - do you actually think that you can using only logic, rationality, science and objective evidence when you explain all of reality including your own being? If you think that, you are irrational, because you have no evidence for that according to your own rule of logic, rationality, science and objective evidence. It is that simple.
A part of a reality is objective, another part is intersubjective and yet another part is subjective to the individual. And you can't use objective evidence on something, which is not objective. That is a contradiction. You can only demand objective evidence for that part of reality, which is objective.
The rule is not that objective evidence is better!!! In part because better is subjective.

Rather you ought to demand objective evidence for that which is objective and only accept subjective claims for that which is subjective. The moment we turn into an intersubjective we, objective stops being useful. We ought to... is an intersubjective claim for which there are only subjective justification possible for that ought. If you in any shape or form think you can do that with objective evidence in any form, you are irrational. You functionally commit the following contradiction - you will claim something is not dependent on your thinking for which it is dependent on your thinking. Any real life ought is a cognitive choice between 2 or more possible way of thinking and science doesn't work on that, because it is not observer independent.

Forget for a moment religion and stop treating it as special in any kind, shape or form. Whether it be negative or positive, and go wider - classify all kinds of moral/ethical normative claims as to whether the person does so objectively or subjectively. The moment someone claims objective authority over reality, that person is claiming objective authority over YOU!!!

So I don't care whether you are religious or not. I care with what authority you claim you can describe and prescribe reality. Further I don't care whether you are rational, irrational or arational. I just want to know if you understand the difference between objective, intersubjective and subjective when it comes to ethics.

With regards
Click to expand...

Why would anyone need authority to describe reality? Water is wet and fire is hot regardless of what kind of word net you try to weave.
 
PixyMisa said:
The problem is that this is complete garbage. Valid questions of meaning and moral value are scientifically answerable. The reason most questions of meaning and moral value aren't scientifically answerable is that they're not valid - they are not answerable by any means.
Click to expand...

This looks question-begging to me.
 
The beauty of the truth is that you don't need to believe in it.
Everyone believes things which are wrong.

The matter of interest, surely is whether the beliefs a person holds, even where demonstrably nonsensical, impact his ability to do a job.

I know nothing of the candidate in the OP, but I do know Pat Robertson's beliefs disqualify him for the job.
Or any job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom