Rant about the Humanist Conference

[SezMe]

... but there's a lot more to religion than doctrine.

Excellent post, FaisonMars. Challenges my thinking. Which is why I want to call attention to this phrase. You are undoubtly correct but sadly there are many, many people who have trouble separating the two (or simply cannot separate them at all). It is these people that Harris, Dawkins, et. al. are talking about, I think.

Are they a small fringe that we should not overly concern ourselves with or are they a dominant religious force? I sure don't know...I could make an argument either way. But in any case, how do you think Humanists should deal with those who conflate doctrine and religion?

 

[CFLarsen]

Are they a small fringe that we should not overly concern ourselves with or are they a dominant religious force?

In "The Root of All Evil?", Dawkins makes the point - and I agree with that - that it doesn't matter how big the religion is, or what the religion is. It isn't a question of size, it's a question of principle: Once you believe, you have no use for rationality.

That a religion can grow to a highly influential, and sometimes all-controlling, force just makes it clearer how much of a problem it is.

But in any case, how do you think Humanists should deal with those who conflate doctrine and religion?

Which believers don't?

 

[SezMe]

In "The Root of All Evil?", Dawkins makes the point - and I agree with that - that it doesn't matter how big the religion is, or what the religion is. It isn't a question of size, it's a question of principle: Once you believe, you have no use for rationality.

Well, isn't this going to be interesting - I'm going to argue that size does matter....and I'm male.

Kidding aside, consider the Flat Earthers. They're a small, fringe group who only provide entertainment value...not just because they're nuts, but also because they're such a small group that "nobody" can believe them.

But the fundamentalist Christians in the USA do matter...not because their beliefs are any more rational but because they have the numbers to translate their beliefs into political power.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, isn't this going to be interesting - I'm going to argue that size does matter....and I'm male.

Kidding aside, consider the Flat Earthers. They're a small, fringe group who only provide entertainment value...not just because they're nuts, but also because they're such a small group that "nobody" can believe them.

But the fundamentalist Christians in the USA do matter...not because their beliefs are any more rational but because they have the numbers to translate their beliefs into political power.

And that's the point we need to make: That there is no difference between Flat Earthers and fundamentalist Christians.

 

[Soapy Sam]

There may be no individual difference of quality between Chinese soldiers and Taiwanese soldiers, but there are more of the former.

 

[Wowbagger]

It doesn't have to always be the case - just often enough to keep the CC on track.

Well, I can't predict the future, to any detailed degree, but I am willing bet (If I were to live long enough to see it) that the Pope's power will not last forever. It may take a long time, a really long time perhaps, but not forever.

Why wouldn't they?

For the same reason we don't notice a lot of trends, until it is too late: it happens slowly, and our standards shift with each generation. Like the shift from tribal warfare to sports games, or the shift from nomadic lifestyle to agriculture. No one noticed these shifts, as they were happening. We only recognize them in retrospect.

That's a far cry from stopping them from saying what they want.

When did I ever say we should stop them from saying what they want (except when someone could get hurt)?
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that the line "does not make any claims of 'fact' that are demonstratably false" does not mean we should outlaw the making of those claims. We simply do not need to support those claims any further than granting of rights to say it.

However, when someone makes a claim we suspect is false, we also have every right to challenge that claim.

They can be rational up to a point. Just because they are believers doesn't make them slobbering vegetables.

Exactly. One can be very rational, in most of their thinking processes, but when it comes to their vision of god, get a little mushy.

No, but when you ask believers - e.g. Christians - about the contents of the Bible, you will find a remarkable lack of knowledge what the whole thing is all about.

I wasn't talking about them. There could be some people willing to accept that the Bible is not the basis of morality, but still have some vague belief in (or "belief in belief" in) some sort of god or deity or whatever.

I am not knowledgeable enough in the mentality of believers to start explaining how and why all the various forms of belief can occur in humans, though.

I am not talking about what we think happens. I am talking about what the client think happens. If the client is satisfied with what the psychic does, and believes the psychic is doing good, then what?

The client may be lead to think the psychic is a moral person. That is why it is up to us to try to educate all of these clients and potential clients.

You probably heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The question really becomes: Does one with good intentions count as a moral person, even if what they do ends up "accidentally" (from their perspective) causing more damage?

Delusional psychics may believe they are helping people, and therefore have "good intentions". If that counts as acting good, morally, is a matter of debate, even though we recognize the results as dangerous.
Obviously, the ones who know they are putting on a scam are rotten in every way.

That's what I said: Humanism is one way of ridding the world of any kind of superstition.

Well good. For some reason, I thought you were knocking it.

All this crap about "illumination" and "deeper knowledge"... Do we have a deeper understanding of God, psi, dowsing, astrology, etc today than we had 2000 years ago?

Your lecture on the gifts if science is all absolutely true.

Some might argue (though, I am not necessarily one of them) that as long as we don't know everything about the Universe, there will always be some room, philosophically, for a deity, (but not scientifically). And it is that form of philosophizing that some people, for whatever reason, delve into.
I guess it is strictly-speaking, a superstition. But, as long as it is not one that is relied upon, nor one that wastes any more resources than what would be allotted for entertainment purposes anyway, it might be worth letting it go.


It would be nice if some deists could contribute to this conversation, to offer us some more insights into that mentality. I am finding it difficult to think, in any precise way, from their point of view.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, I can't predict the future, to any detailed degree, but I am willing bet (If I were to live long enough to see it) that the Pope's power will not last forever. It may take a long time, a really long time perhaps, but not forever.

If anything, the CC is more powerful than it has been since the Middle Ages. It owns vast tracts of land all over the world, and has enormous influence not just on European matters, but around the world. And there is no sign of this power diminishing in any way.

For the same reason we don't notice a lot of trends, until it is too late: it happens slowly, and our standards shift with each generation. Like the shift from tribal warfare to sports games, or the shift from nomadic lifestyle to agriculture. No one noticed these shifts, as they were happening. We only recognize them in retrospect.

Given that the CC is firmly rooted in history, and never does anything without keeping a close eye on historical precedence, I sincerely doubt that the CC will ever be in the situation where it will ever not notice such a fundamental shift.

When did I ever say we should stop them from saying what they want (except when someone could get hurt)?

Here:

As you stated, government cannot interfere with beliefs, only products of them that do not work as believed. But, I am saying that, as a non-government movement, Humanism has no Freedom of Speech issues. It can say that no one should say anything that can clearly be demonstrated otherwise.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that the line "does not make any claims of 'fact' that are demonstratably false" does not mean we should outlaw the making of those claims. We simply do not need to support those claims any further than granting of rights to say it.

Fair enough.

However, when someone makes a claim we suspect is false, we also have every right to challenge that claim.

Not just that, we have a duty to do so.

The client may be lead to think the psychic is a moral person. That is why it is up to us to try to educate all of these clients and potential clients.

You probably heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The question really becomes: Does one with good intentions count as a moral person, even if what they do ends up "accidentally" (from their perspective) causing more damage?

Delusional psychics may believe they are helping people, and therefore have "good intentions". If that counts as acting good, morally, is a matter of debate, even though we recognize the results as dangerous.
Obviously, the ones who know they are putting on a scam are rotten in every way.

Absolutely. But if the client thinks that the psychic is doing good, then the morals are sound, because the actions taken are seen as good. To the client, the psychic acts like a very good, moral person.

See the conundrum?

Your lecture on the gifts if science is all absolutely true.

Some might argue (though, I am not necessarily one of them) that as long as we don't know everything about the Universe, there will always be some room, philosophically, for a deity, (but not scientifically). And it is that form of philosophizing that some people, for whatever reason, delve into.
I guess it is strictly-speaking, a superstition. But, as long as it is not one that is relied upon, nor one that wastes any more resources than what would be allotted for entertainment purposes anyway, it might be worth letting it go.

The problem with philosophy is that it doesn't have to have any connection to reality in order for people to find it appealing. At times, it seems as if the less connection to reality it has, the more appealing it is.

It would be nice if some deists could contribute to this conversation, to offer us some more insights into that mentality. I am finding it difficult to think, in any precise way, from their point of view.

I think they are out looking for a god...

 

[Wowbagger]

If anything, the CC is more powerful than it has been since the Middle Ages. It owns vast tracts of land all over the world, and has enormous influence not just on European matters, but around the world. And there is no sign of this power diminishing in any way.

Remember the saw blade analogy.

Given that the CC is firmly rooted in history, and never does anything without keeping a close eye on historical precedence, I sincerely doubt that the CC will ever be in the situation where it will ever not notice such a fundamental shift.

If we keep blabbering about it on Internet forums, like this, maybe you're right.

I am sure there are many examples of the CC fundamentally shifting its views on various things. But, I cannot think of any specific examples, at the moment.

Here:

There is a difference between the Government outlawing something and a private group doing so.
The government cannot outlaw free speech. But, a private group, such as the Humanism movement, can legally do so, if it wants to, among its members (not that it would very often).

Not just that, we have a duty to do so.

Actually, I meant to stick a line in there saying "And challenging is what the JREF must do", but I accidentally left it out. Sorry. But, we agree there.

Absolutely. But if the client thinks that the psychic is doing good, then the morals are sound, because the actions taken are seen as good. To the client, the psychic acts like a very good, moral person.

See the conundrum?

I see it. So, what's your point? Good morality has always been in the eye of the beholder. We can improve results in ones' life through education about the real world, thus improving their morality from our point of view.

But, I still say morals are practically judged by what is actually done, not their source.

My point was that if someone does not steal, because they think the Bible says it, they are acting just as morally as one who does not steal, because they were taught that becoming a thief is simply a bad survival strategy for living a comfortable life, in society.

The problem with philosophy is that it doesn't have to have any connection to reality in order for people to find it appealing. At times, it seems as if the less connection to reality it has, the more appealing it is.

This gets into something I was hoping to start some further threads about, in the near future.

Although what you say is true, most of the time. I think it is also possible to develop a "scientifically respectable" philosophy: One that never argues against what science has empirically determined, but only plays in the realm of the as-yet-unknown. Such a philosophy would not be disconnected from reality: merely dreaming up crazy ways to fill the gaps.
In my humble opinion, such a philosophy, if not taken too seriously by its practitioners, (kept merely as a form of entertainment, or personal comfort), should be allowed to exist without scientific challenge, until science determines what the real gap-filler is. Then the philosophies would have to transform themselves based on that new information.

I am in the early stages of developing such "scientifically respectable" ideas, but none of mine happen to include a deity. However, if others do use one, for such an endeavor, I probably would not argue against it, too much.

I think they are out looking for a god...

Well, I just hope they are not wasting any more resources than they have allocated for entertainment purposes.

 

[Hawkeye]

I thought the conference was a lot of fun. It was great to see you guys again, and to meet some of you for the first time. Pinker, Rushdie, and the panel discussions were all very entertaining, but a few of the speakers were admittedly a little boring.

Probably my favorite part of the conference was the E. O. Wilson breakfast. I do think we need to criticize religious beliefs when they interfere with matters of public policy, but there are occasions when we can - and need - to put aside our philosophical differences in order to address the greatest threats to humanity. If the Southern Baptists want to save the environment because God tells them to, then I’ll gladly keep my atheist mouth shut. Pointing out that I reject their idea of a personal God would, in this case, be completely counterproductive. I deeply admire Wilson's attempts to reach out to the religious community, as a secular scientist, with the laudable goal of saving life on Earth.

I should point out that I skipped out on some events, which apparently were among the worst parts of the conference. While you were eating an age-segregated dinner at the Hyatt, I was wandering around Boston trying out the local cuisine. While you were hearing a bunch of old white men congratulate themselves on Saturday night, I was out crashing a dorm party at MIT. Had I gone to the entire conference, my overall opinion might be different...

 

[CFLarsen]

Remember the saw blade analogy.

The pendulum swings both ways, too.

If we keep blabbering about it on Internet forums, like this, maybe you're right.

I do my bit.

There is a difference between the Government outlawing something and a private group doing so.
The government cannot outlaw free speech. But, a private group, such as the Humanism movement, can legally do so, if it wants to, among its members (not that it would very often).

Bad message.

I see it. So, what's your point? Good morality has always been in the eye of the beholder. We can improve results in ones' life through education about the real world, thus improving their morality from our point of view.

But, I still say morals are practically judged by what is actually done, not their source.

But then, you are not just saying that good morality is always in the eye of the beholder.

Although what you say is true, most of the time. I think it is also possible to develop a "scientifically respectable" philosophy: One that never argues against what science has empirically determined, but only plays in the realm of the as-yet-unknown. Such a philosophy would not be disconnected from reality: merely dreaming up crazy ways to fill the gaps.
In my humble opinion, such a philosophy, if not taken too seriously by its practitioners, (kept merely as a form of entertainment, or personal comfort), should be allowed to exist without scientific challenge, until science determines what the real gap-filler is. Then the philosophies would have to transform themselves based on that new information.

I am in the early stages of developing such "scientifically respectable" ideas, but none of mine happen to include a deity. However, if others do use one, for such an endeavor, I probably would not argue against it, too much.

Are you talking about a controlled, pre-destined philosophy, with no option for real development?

 

[Wowbagger]

The pendulum swings both ways, too.

But the pendulum eventually stops swinging. The heavier it gets with science, the more likely (though there is no guarantee) that religion will find itself greatly diminished.

I do not think we will ever completely get rid of religion, though. There will always be some small group of crazy believers, somewhere. But, it can greatly diminish in power, so that the vast majority of people won't go for it.

Bad message.

Well, it is legally true, I think. But, don't worry: I severely doubt Humanism is going to be limiting anyone's speech anytime soon, given that they are all about diversity and inclusiveness, and other values, etc.
For what it is worth, I am no longer even associated that original paragraph of mine with Humanism, because it was my own idea: I think we should allow religious belief, and long as the two rules are held. This is not necessarily a Humanism statement. Perhaps I erred in mixing the two things together.

But then, you are not just saying that good morality is always in the eye of the beholder.

What I mean, in short, is: Everyone decides what is moral for themselves, but more often than not, the judgment is based on what one actually does, not the ultimate basis for why they do it.

Are you talking about a controlled, pre-destined philosophy, with no option for real development?

Not at all!! It will take much more time and effort to describe this philosophical idea completely but, in summary:
I am talking about a concept where our consciousness is actually a bunch of "bubbles" of material that act somewhat independently of all other material around it. Thus, granting us the ability of independent decision making. And, there could be mechanism for such bubbles to form through a process of natural selection. No god or deity would be necessary.
Keep in mind that this is merely a philosophical construct, not anything that has any basis in science. Although, to my knowledge, the completed idea will not conflict with anything science has determined.

 

[FaisonMars]

I do think we need to criticize religious beliefs when they interfere with matters of public policy, but there are occasions when we can - and need - to put aside our philosophical differences in order to address the greatest threats to humanity. If the Southern Baptists want to save the environment because God tells them to, then I’ll gladly keep my atheist mouth shut.

hear, hear!

I think it's important interested to keep the dialog open, but without sacrificing some basic tenets of non-theism (again, for me, calling earth "The Creation" is going too far). We have to start by identifying a problem that we can pull in the same direction on.

I'm surprised Wilson would first go to the Southern Baptists-- I would think that trying to work with a mainline protestant church would be more productive. Maybe he thinks that going to the extremes will sweep up the middle. Or maybe he went there just because he was born in Birmingham and grew up near Mobile (which is also where I grew up).

 

[Wowbagger]

I should point out that I skipped out on some events, which apparently were among the worst parts of the conference. While you were eating an age-segregated dinner at the Hyatt, I was wandering around Boston trying out the local cuisine. While you were hearing a bunch of old white men congratulate themselves on Saturday night, I was out crashing a dorm party at MIT.

You kids, these days, got no discipline!

 

[CFLarsen]

But the pendulum eventually stops swinging. The heavier it gets with science, the more likely (though there is no guarantee) that religion will find itself greatly diminished.

I do not think we will ever completely get rid of religion, though. There will always be some small group of crazy believers, somewhere. But, it can greatly diminish in power, so that the vast majority of people won't go for it.

People will need very compelling reasons to give up religion. They need something that, at the very least, gives them as much gratification as their religion does.

What I mean, in short, is: Everyone decides what is moral for themselves, but more often than not, the judgment is based on what one actually does, not the ultimate basis for why they do it.

But that means you cannot say that what a psychic does is immoral - the sitter sure doesn't think it is immoral.

There is no question that many sitters find the psychics highly beneficial and doing a world of good.

Not at all!! It will take much more time and effort to describe this philosophical idea completely but, in summary:
I am talking about a concept where our consciousness is actually a bunch of "bubbles" of material that act somewhat independently of all other material around it. Thus, granting us the ability of independent decision making. And, there could be mechanism for such bubbles to form through a process of natural selection. No god or deity would be necessary.
Keep in mind that this is merely a philosophical construct, not anything that has any basis in science. Although, to my knowledge, the completed idea will not conflict with anything science has determined.

It sounds like philosophy, that's for sure!

 

[Wowbagger]

People will need very compelling reasons to give up religion. They need something that, at the very least, gives them as much gratification as their religion does.

I see it as more of a generation-by-generation thing. Few true believers will leave religion in their lifetime, but maybe their children will be a little more lenient. And, maybe their grandchildren more so...

But that means you cannot say that what a psychic does is immoral - the sitter sure doesn't think it is immoral.

There is no question that many sitters find the psychics highly beneficial and doing a world of good.

The act of claiming to be a psychic is immoral, and I am sure you do not need a lecture from me, as to why. (for the benefit of other readers, I summarize why below, anyway.)

A lot of things may make people feel good, but that does not mean the act of doing so will not have negative consequences. If the negative consequences outweigh the benefits, you can say the act is immoral.

Psychics are acting immoral, (from our point of view), because there is a lot of potential harm that could come out of it: supporting a distorted world view, disrespecting the memory of loved ones, prolonging the period of grief, etc., etc. I am sure you can come up with others.
The ones who claim to know where missing people are, are even worse: They are wasting the resources of families and police, and interfering with a proper investigation, etc.

The clients may see the psychic as doing good, but only because their world view is so distorted. Suicide bombers also believe they are doing good, although they are much more visibly dangerous.

We have a duty to transform distorted world views to be more realistic, for all those reasons.

However, sometimes we might have to choose our battles. My previous example with stealing, (It doesn't matter if the basis for "not stealing" is the Bible or game theory, the result is the same: one is less prone to steal), was not supposed to imply that Bible-belief is a perfect substitute for secular morality. There sure are other aspects of the Bible, that could lead to immorality. My argument is only that some elements are not nearly as bad as others. Our battle should focus on the bad parts more than anything else.
Reliance on God to help solve our problems is one such bad part, for example.

It sounds like philosophy, that's for sure!

I promise I will not waste too many resources developing or promoting it. Maybe I'll just buy and play fewer computer games this year, if I have to.

 

[kittynh]

OK this is the RANT about the CONFERNECE.

Claus if you want a RANT about HUMANISTS, and have nothing important to put in like the deserts were rather dreadful, except the chocolate one with the swirl topping...let's start a new thread.

 

[Wowbagger]

the deserts were rather dreadful, except the chocolate one with the swirl topping...let's start a new thread.

I didn't think the desserts were that bad. Filling, for sure. But not dreadful.


ETA: I could be wrong, but I suspect Claus is almost done ranting, anyway.

 

[CFLarsen]

I see it as more of a generation-by-generation thing. Few true believers will leave religion in their lifetime, but maybe their children will be a little more lenient. And, maybe their grandchildren more so...

And maybe their grandchildren become even more religious.

The act of claiming to be a psychic is immoral, and I am sure you do not need a lecture from me, as to why. (for the benefit of other readers, I summarize why below, anyway.)

A lot of things may make people feel good, but that does not mean the act of doing so will not have negative consequences. If the negative consequences outweigh the benefits, you can say the act is immoral.

Psychics are acting immoral, (from our point of view), because there is a lot of potential harm that could come out of it: supporting a distorted world view, disrespecting the memory of loved ones, prolonging the period of grief, etc., etc. I am sure you can come up with others.
The ones who claim to know where missing people are, are even worse: They are wasting the resources of families and police, and interfering with a proper investigation, etc.

The clients may see the psychic as doing good, but only because their world view is so distorted. Suicide bombers also believe they are doing good, although they are much more visibly dangerous.

We have a duty to transform distorted world views to be more realistic, for all those reasons.

Then, we agree.

However, sometimes we might have to choose our battles. My previous example with stealing, (It doesn't matter if the basis for "not stealing" is the Bible or game theory, the result is the same: one is less prone to steal), was not supposed to imply that Bible-belief is a perfect substitute for secular morality. There sure are other aspects of the Bible, that could lead to immorality. My argument is only that some elements are not nearly as bad as others. Our battle should focus on the bad parts more than anything else.
Reliance on God to help solve our problems is one such bad part, for example.

There sure are many aspects of the Bible that will lead to immorality.

I promise I will not waste too many resources developing or promoting it. Maybe I'll just buy and play fewer computer games this year, if I have to.

Probably more productive, too. Philosophies have a tendency to drift towards semantic masturbation....

I didn't think the desserts were that bad. Filling, for sure. But not dreadful.

ETA: I could be wrong, but I suspect Claus is almost done ranting, anyway.

"Ranting"? I'm not ranting.

This is ranting:

OK this is the RANT about the CONFERNECE.

Claus if you want a RANT about HUMANISTS, and have nothing important to put in like the deserts were rather dreadful, except the chocolate one with the swirl topping...let's start a new thread.

I wasn't there. But, since you have a craving....

 

[FaisonMars]

I wasn't there. But, since you have a craving....

Yum... Are these strawberries organic? And could I get some coffee over here?

 

[Wowbagger]

And maybe their grandchildren become even more religious.

It will be a mixed bag, I am sure. Some will. Some won't. Only time will tell how it all turns out.

But, one key reason people are clinging to their faith stronger than ever, is because they feel threatened by the progress of science. That, to me, seems to be an indication that science will ultimately win out most people's minds. Although, it will still take a while, and still require hard work on our part.

Then, we agree.

I thought we would. I don't know why we even argued this long on that point.

Philosophies have a tendency to drift towards semantic masturbation....

Yes, I am aware of that as a potential problem. While I am clearly not an expert in such writing, I will do my best to mitigate the risks.

Yum... Are these strawberries organic? And could I get some coffee over here?

Since when are organic strawberries any better than conventionally grown ones?