onegoodmove

Dawkins on Hitchens: Hitchens's quote:"Islamic mobs were violating diplomatic immunity and issuing death threats against civilians, yet the response from His Holiness the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury was to condemn – the cartoons! In my own profession, there was a rush to see who could capitulate the fastest, by reporting on the disputed images without actually showing them. And this at a time when the mass media has become almost exclusively picture-driven. Euphemistic noises were made about the need to show “respect’” but I know quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for “restraint” was simple fear. In other words, a handful of religious bullies and bigmouths could, so to speak, outvote the tradition of free expression in its Western heartland."

Dawkins's response: "While I admire Hitchens’s courage, I could not condemn those editors.[italics are mine] There are times when “cowardice” amounts to no more than sensible prudence. But Hitchens is surely right to despise leaders of other religions who, while under no threat, go out of their way to volunteer a gratuitous “respect” and “sympathy” for those who incite murder in the name of God."

So ban me. Just say the word.

Dude... Let it go.

To counter dawkins point - when someone points out the atrocities of formally atheist states (stalin et al) we quickly hear how they weren't really atheists, or they weren't acting as atheists, etc.

But the issue is that atheism being the lack of belief in a god does not preach morality as a tenet of atheism. Rather morality in individuals exists/does not exist based on nurture, innate brain functions, societal function etc.. Religion does claim morality as being PART of religion and or at least being propagated by religion. So when things go awry or religious people do "bad" things therein lies the hypocrisy. Of course, at that point the others tend to say that the person wasn't acting like a true "christian". But when somebody does something good then it had to be his religion.

It's kinda like these politicians who preach moral "family" values in the name of god and country yet shag other ladies behind their wives' backs. It's not the shagging that bothers me it's their insistence that their religion-based value code is superior to mine (and then to top that they don't even actually live by it...)

It's not that non-religious folks "hate god" (which can't exactly be possible if you don't believe...) or religious folks, it's the constant preaching and "live by our rules" stuff that bugs us.

I'm not here to convince others what to believe. The world is after all an unfathomable place full of mystery and we can infer a lot based on experience. But that is a personal thing. So believe in fairies for all I care. Just don't tell me that I have to live my life by the fairies' code.

If Stalin had been an enlightened benificent ruler, would you have held his government up as an example of the value of atheism as an official worldview?

"The Splintered Mind:" Could I Hitch* a ride?

.

.

*my thumb's up. :)

Although I myself am an atheist (although TECHICALLY speaking we are all agnostic), I think Douglas Wilson's question to Hitch, although somewhat missing the point, requires an answer: What is the warrant for an atheistic sense of morality? Why must we term one thing "evil" and another "good"? I sense we can hold up some aspects of utilitarianism here, but this is not enough.

The evolutionary answer, further, must move beyond the biological. I would argue that while evolution favors species who act "morally," once we've reached the level of complexity that human society has, morality in turn influences the biological. This I think successfully nips in the bud Wilson's assertion that evolution-derived morality may one day CHANGE. He has it backward, that in fact evolutionarily beneficent morals will be that which drives changes, not the othe way around.

However, this still doesn't adequately address the here and now so important to acting morally in the first place: beyond having morals that ensure evolutionary success, why should we act morally, how does this affect anyone in the short term, and which morals can we be sure will be the "keepers"? What counts as "beneficial" to evolution, and is this really what should compel morality anyway?

Atheism should not be in the position of forming a coherent counter-philosophy, as such. But people who identify as atheists and engage in the process of excoriating the religious must nonetheless provide compelling reasons as to why adherents should give up their religious beliefs, other than that "there is no evidence for it."

@Dirk: "there is no evidence for it" is one of many, many arguements against religion. it's the starting point. It's the key that turns the engine.

If someone wants to claim that god is their creator, fine, I don't care. The reason why I fight against religion is because then they say, "God is my creator, and I want to teach it in your classroom to your children, and I want to be tax exempt because God is the CEO of my business (sorry, i mean church). I want to say that Stem Cells are bad because they have "souls".

Athiests are usually not part of the "athiest religion", like you are arguing, saying that all that athiests have is the arguement AGAINST god.

It's hard for some people to understand that point. I don't have to have "beliefs" to be moral. Why do moral decisions have to go beyond biology anyway? All we are is a clump of matter that is trying to perpetuate itself.

What counts as "beneficial" to evolution, and is this really what should compel morality anyway?

(do you mean "what counts as beneficial evolution"?) Could you give an example of morality that isn't tied to survival of our species? I can't think of one, at the moment.

My personal jihad

I have decided to declare my own Holy War against organized religion. A fatwa, if you will. It will consist of me lacing the entire world's potable water supply with Lysergic acid diethylamide, thus forcing the evolution of our collective unconscious and bringing about the realization that we are all one, there is only one true God, and the only way to properly communicate with her is by using your Third Eye. Mother Nature Akbar!

"we are all one" One what?

"we are all free" to...

"Third Eye" so three are one (and one is three?) Sounds just like the Trinity. Speak for yourself, I ain't gathering no moss. I'm on a role.

I have to stop. OGM is becoming OCD.

!

"Could you give an example of morality that isn't tied to survival of our species? I can't think of one, at the moment."

Negative eugenics for one (weeding out those with genetic defects). Makes for good evolution but poor sleeping. I think you could also argue that certain forms of polygamy are 'better' from a natural selection standpoint than monogomy.

Natural selection acts at a level lower than the species. So one could see international aid as being counter-production from an evolutionary standpoint.

"Negative eugenics" Is counterproductive to "survival", i believe. Morals usually involve the saving of lives, not "weeding out the weak". Genocide can hardly be described as "survival of the species". Also, that would inferr that we know what "defects" are, and that they are "defects". Scycle cell-anemia is a marvelous mutation to deal with malaria.

And, what is wrong with polygamy, in the moral sense. And i'm not talking about the 12 year olds being sold off to their 40 year old cousins to "carry their seed."

What is wrong with a family unit that takes care of itself, no matter the members. Soon you'll be telling me that having two mommies is more harmful than a single working parent taking care of the children.

International aid isn't counterproductive to our "survival" in the immediate sense, but in the future, it will start to be a problem, but our biological alarms don't go off because we are creatures of the now.

Most of this is just rambling, but it's been a long day.

I have to stop. OGM is becoming OCD.

C'est vrai! T'es mignon. ch'te'l dit!

re polygamy - you're right in that some people consider this just a matter of social norms.

re eugenics - we both agree it is abhorrent. But I say from an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense. Now that we have proper medications to treat malaria, there's no good reason to 'keep sickle-cell disease around'. And that's for a harmful trait we can find a good reason for. Think about all the heritable diseases that have no conceivable benefit to the individual or to society. Biodiversity has its own point of diminishing returns

The idea is that survival of certain individuals would be cut short for the benefit of the survival/health of the larger gene pool.

Again, I'm not advocating it, I'm not admiring it, I'm just trying to give an example where what we'd call 'morally right' might conflict with what a dispassionate observer might call 'advantageous according to the principles of natural selection'.

"If Stalin had been an enlightened benificent ruler, would you have held his government up as an example of the value of atheism as an official worldview?" - snak

I guess in the past I may have. But now I have an easier time separating a person's views on certain manners from mine. In the sense that people behave /believe differently at different times. Sometimes you behave according to your own tenets, other times not (thanks to cognitive dissonance). If there was a stronger connection between atheism and purity of morals then I would say yes. But I don't see it as such and I don't see it in religion either. But there is a least a qualitative difference in that atheists who have high moral standards are doing so without the need for approval from the heavens and thus without seeking a reward. Whether someone is truly altruistic is debatable though.

So had Stalin been a great leader, I would not per se infer atheism as a better view because of that anymore than I would for a religious leader. But atheism doesn't F with science, whereas religion does and that irks me (along with the preaching..) And to my knowledge atheists haven't waged real war on believers in the name of "the lack of god" (i.e. as the primary objective)..it usually our god vs theirs...

@snak:

Breeding of dogs and horses comes to mind when you talk about such things. Many "purebreed" dogs can't even give birth to their puppies because their heads are so huge due to interbreeding and "selective genetics". Maybe Biodiversity is a moral stance. If we all started inbreeding, we probably wouldn't be around long, and I wonder if such knowledge is known to our "genes", if you will.

I understand what you are getting at, but I don't think that a narrowing of the gene pool is considered "survival of the fittist", even though it looks like it is on the surface, removing the imperfections. All we are is a collection of imperfect gene sequences that accomplish something.

Again, i'm ranting. Just trying to think this out.