Just continuing this thread: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1558983

The thread was closed at thirty posts and I didn't have a chance to reply to Steve Benson's energetic post.

Steve, I agree with virtually everything you wrote there: the existence of gods does not seem to be the sort of thing which can be empirically validated. And yes, for a religionist to try to prove their religion true through science is, in some ways, a tacit admission that science is a more credible way of learning about the world than, say, reading the Bible, or praying, or listening to a guru, or whatever.

You wrote, "Reason will only survive in this world when, and if, religionists decide to try using it. Earth to the other-worlders: It is reason alone that will keep us from destroying the planet in the name of (insert your favorite god here)."

A few thoughts on this:

1.) Reason, in varying measure, will always survive, whether religion continues (as no doubt it will) or not. But unreason, in varying measure, will also survive, whether religion continues or not. Manifestations of reason and unreason will always exist wherever humans exist;

2.) It is not the case that religious believers do not use reason - many of history's best reasoning minds entertained religious notions of some kind or other, and this is still true - nor is it the case that an absence of religious belief confers immunity against unreason or empirically groundless beliefs, or itself indicates superior rationality or intelligence overall. Indeed, it is as easy to find a foolish atheist as it is to find a wise religious believer. (I say that as someone with no theist beliefs);

3.) I am not sure that "reason" will help us save the planet. In the absence of strict laws, "reason" might just as well convince someone to destroy some portion of the earth to make a profit. You might counter that it is reason which institutes the strict laws in the first place; but it is just as conceivable that "reason", in a certain situation, might weigh the economic pros against the environmental cons of a certain proposal, and choose the economic pros, loosening or eliminating environmental laws, or not passing them in the first place.

Contrast this use of reason with two "unreasonable" views of earth and how they might affect it: a Native American attribution of a "soul" and "sanctity" to Nature, leading to the sense of obligation not to injure it, and a Christian view that God created the world (meaning it's sacred) and charged humankind (via Adam) with being its conscientious steward.

In those two cases, unreason would provide each group with an incentive to protect the earth, whereas reason could very possibly lead a logging company president, or a political ruler, to destroy a portion of the earth for profit. In that last case, the earth would be destroyed not in the name of some supernatural god, but in the name of a natural god called Money. In the two other cases, the earth would be protected in the name of supernatural gods. This is not a controversial assertion; this is a fact of human history: sometimes reason leads to great crimes; sometimes unreason leads to positive outcomes.

So, back to my original point in the first post:

It is overly simple to the point of unreasonable to equate "positive outcomes" with "reason" (or empirically justified beliefs), and "negative outcomes" with "unreason" (or empirically unjustified beliefs). A lie can be more effective than the truth in leading to a positive outcome, or a survival advantage, and this is one reason questions of ethics are more complex than commonly supposed.

I myself have no theist beliefs, and though it might seem like it, I'm not trying to justify lying or unreason. I am only pointing out that the equating of reason and empirically justified beliefs with "positive outcomes" is itself unreasonable. The world is not that black and white, and evolutionary theory itself furnishes a devastating strike against this view. It was Darwin himself who first raised the issue in "The Descent of Man".



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 02:56AM by Tal Bachman.

. . . who, when establishing and asserting dominance over all its members, not only drives out or kills the competing adult males but also slaughters all the cubs.

He does this, not out of reason, but because of an instinctive fear of difference that is a genetically inbred reality that serves to warn of potential danger and, thefore, to enhance chances of survival. By killing what he sees as deadly competitors, the dominant male lion is purging the pride of alien genetic opponents. The reason why he kills all the cubs (including those he may have himself sired) is because he does not know their genetic inheritance. To this male who is determined to dominate, eradicate and procreate, all other males are viewed as possible threats, particularly the young adult ones--and this can gravitate down to even to the the level of slaughtering the cubs. The male seeking ultimate control of the females, of the offspring and of all others in the pride must either kill them, drive them out or otherwise control and intimidate them into submission, in order for him to have sex with as many of the lionesses as possible. with his inner drive compelling him to create his own trusted, blood-bonded, family-identified community. Since the other adult males who happen to be in the pride that the procreatively-powered male wishes to control, he kills off the younger strong ones who could unseat him, kills off the juvenile ones who could grow to challenge him and then either drives off or ignores the older or weaker males who are in no real position to threaten him.

Sound familiar? Welcome to human religion. In human society, this kind of behavior has historically been seen in "God"-mandated warfare, terror and murder led by testosterone-powered males who are determined to conquer all comers and to instinctively spread their seed sd far and wide into the future as they can. They achieve for themselves further stature and power by claiming that "God" is commanding them to do this in fulfifllment of divine will. Those who are "different" in God's eyes are either banished or killed, while the privileged "same" ones are procreated and protected in an instinct-driven impulse to further "God's" breed seed.

Of course, one can argue that instinctively-present and primitively-fanned fears and loathings in the human species increases the predicticve likelihood of efforts by human dominators to want to survive and to reproduce in order to deepen both their tribal base and their genetic pool. In the name of "God," therefore, members find it necessary, in the name of "God," to:

(1) Fight for sameness, kill those who are different and rid the nation, community or village of "foreign" threats that are seen as endangering the present and future of the group's core membership.

(2) If not killed, then force those who are threateningly different to flee for their lives. They will do so when they are outnumbered and.or outgunned, therefore moving away to establish their own close-knit communities populated with their own tightly-connected inhabitants who are judged as being part of their "God's" specially-grafted group. Oftentimes, those driven out re-form their own societies to live and fight another day, hoping--through the "territorial imperative"--to regain what they consider theirs and to destroy or drive out all competitors, as well.

Kill the perceived threat or run from it. Either approach serves to preserve human tribes through a sense of group cohesion and genetic connection--which are protected and secured by force against "aliens" of their "God."

This has been a significant element of in the global history of human religious groupings and movements which, in the name of a higher power, single out and separate those decreed to be Chosen" vs. those decreed to be "rejected" by "God." Different customs, traditions, social roles and mores, clothing, sounds, facial features, skin color, smells, music, languages--all play a role in determining who lives, who dies, who stays, who goes, and who is impregnated to continue "God's" special line of loyalists. This is said by believers to be according to the supernatural edicts of the manufactured "Gods" of the various tribes--all of which are concocted to provide purpose, identity and cohesion for human communities that identify themselves by genetically-rooted, instinctively-embedded fears of differences.

That doesn't make these killings or banishments rational, informed, moral or justifiable. It makes them tools of brute force employed by cohesive human social groups and clans which use fear and difference to divide and conquer. This is religion at its worst. It is this kind of religion that has made, and continues to leave, a bloody footprint on the landscape of humanity.

But it is not decreed that human destiny be gorily guided by genetic genocidal impulses exacerbated by "Gods" created in the images of their faithful warriors. This is where the powers and persuasion fo human reasoning, combined with concerted educational awareness, can enter the picture and help change conceptual frames of reference over the span of generations. Instead of dividing, separating from, killing or conquering those who are regarded as being so threateningly alien that they supposedly pose an existential danger to "God's" hand-picked people, thoughtful human beings have been demonstrably capable of seeking to understand differences; and of breaking down suspicions, assumptions and mistrust bred by ignorance--all through the power and influence of inherited human reasoning that comes from within critical-thinking centers of the human brain's temporal lobes. We can think and reason our way out of our prejudices, given time, education, persistence and commitment to do so. It is a difficult and a duty that is unending and must be pursued for the benefit of each succeeding generation.

This is no easy course to navigate and maintain. Automatic, instinctively-evolved perceptions among modern-day humans trace back millions of years to our hominid ancestors who also killed or fled from creatures who were fearfully seen as "different" and therefore deserving of distrust. rejection and/or destruction.

This is a matter of fundamental sociobiological realities underpinning eons of hominid behavior. Our social reactions are significantly influenced by our historical genetic inheritances. But humans--because of their neurobiological/chemical capabilities of uniquely critical and creative thinking--are equipped to consciously recognize and override their violent, prejudiced, primitive genetic tendencies that served long ago to protect early human societies but which, in its modern ingerings, results in all-too-familar ruthless, unthinking efforts to dominate, to kill and to seize in the name of human-concocted "Gods." This proclivity rests on the genetically-evolved and adapted foundations of fear of difference, which led early groups of hominids to regard other groups of hominids (or unrelated animals) to pose threats to their continued existence. It has given rise, as well, to ugly impulses of racism. Humans, in the name of Fortress Religion are driven by base genetic impulses to behave in ways that are barbaric, ugly and intolerant. We are smart enough (and hopefully educated enough) to choose not to behave like instinctive, irrational beasts in killing off perceived threats in the name of self-made deities. We are certainly good at killing our own cubs--and the cubs of others.

We can choose to engage in conscious human awareness and choice that raises us above the ground level of creatures of instinct. We can reasonably, rationally, informatively, responsibly and in educated ways think our way out of such instinct-driven religious impulses which can otherwise trap humans, even today, into forming separatist communities, neighborhoods, and nations that make war on each other in perpetuity. We are consciously empowered to recognize and overcome ethnic and other perceived divides that have led humans into repetitive cycles throughout history of unnecessary violence, "othernesss," mistrust, conflict and territorial impulse to kill and grab whatever they can in the name of "God" in order to prevail against their imagined "enemies."

In the short term, religious terror may rule the roost and preserve the group that believes it possesses the might of Heaven and Earth to declare what is "right" and destroy what is "wrong." In the long run, however, human history has demonstrated time and again that, in the name of "God," unparalleled atrocities have savaged and continues to savage, the plenet. It is shocking what humans can to grotesquely do to one other when they are convinced they have God on their side.

Yes, violent religion persists in the world because it is seen by its fanatical followers as proof from beyond this world that they are swordbearers in "God's glorious armies waging war against all those unacceptably "different" unbelievers. What should persist in its place (and what can, in fact, prevail in the world) is human rationality which consciously elevates moral awareness, in concert with unfolding understanding and acceptance of not only unique human differences among our global human neighborhoods, but also of our amazing connectedness and commonalities at the deepest, African-rooted origins of the entire human race.

Religion, in its extreme forms, has exhibited a nasty historical knack for producing horrifically destructive judgmentalism and violence. Determined, multi-generational committment to spreading education and consciousness of our universal human bonds can result in greater peace and understanding.

So let's not use religion as some kind proof of supposedly intractable, unremovable, invariable forces that give rise to global violence and bone-crushing power grabs.

Let's try thinking--and acting--outside humanity's genetic box. It doesn't have to be a permanent prison. But it can be too long of a holding cell so there's no time to dawdle as human-invented deities continue to commit their atrocities through their fanatically faithful followers. Remember what H.G. Wells said:

"Civilization is a race between disaster and education.”

Religion has brought this planet a god-awful history of blood-soaked human-spawned disasters, all in heaven's hellish name. An educated giant in his day, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged as much when in his 1787 "Notes on the State of Virginia," he wrote:

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the Earth."

Yet, on we go. Religious rabidness continues to reign with blood and horror on this Earth but it's certainly not all the fault of Christians. Let's do what we can to stop the ubiquitous madness, whovever's grisly "Gods" are currently at the helm of the unholy horror. There's enough ungodly gruesomeness going on for any number deviant deities to claim well-earned credit for its poisonous presence in our world. .



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 07:14PM by steve benson.

Steve said:

"That doesn't make these killings or banishments rational, informed, moral or justifiable. It makes them tools of brute force employed by tightly-woven human social groups which use fear and difference to divide and conquer. This is religion at its worst. And religion that has made, and continues to leave, a bloody footprint on the landscqpe of humanity."

If you're interested in saying something relevant about today, Steve, substitute "the State" for religion, and specify your own State, at that.

even as we speak. You simply want to get God off his unholy hook of immoral self-crucifixion by diverting blame to other war-mongers--this time the human ones whom he creates and then commands to go out and pulverize the wicked. This is God Almighty doing the slaughtering of his own children--or is that sadistic irony completely lost on you?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 10:22AM by steve benson.

This appears to be a chicken-and-egg situation where the question is: Does instinct follow religion or does religion follow instinct. I would argue the latter; i.e., that religion is used to justify instinctual behavior by human beings. If that justification were taken away (i.e. outlawed), then human beings would find some other means to justify their instinctual behavior, including rationality and reason, if necessary. It is possible that one may consider the end of my last sentence an oxymoron, but it should be pointed out that not all people view rationality and reason in the same way that the scientific and educated communities do.

And here I would make one more point. Human beings are first and foremost animals, mammals to be exact. While reason and rationality as used in the scientific community may appear to lead us towards exiting some of our ingrained animal behaviors, I would contend that this is not so. Put another way, I would argue that when instinctive human behaviors collide with behaviors that would appear to be more constructive using reason and rationality as defined by the scientific community (such as the tribe survival hypothesis put forward by Tal Bachman in his original post), instinct will always win.

It provides human-concoted weapons of thought and action to justify the murder or banishment of those deemed to be alien outsiders. Fear will always be with us. Religion preys on fear and evolves out of the human mind to identify and target perceived threats for either expulsion or elimination in the name of a guiding "God."

Religion isn't going away any time soon--and neither is the fevered imaginations of so many humans who foster, feed and fall for it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 07:33PM by steve benson.

The idea of religion dying off completely makes me smile. However, it's not going away as long as it has a role in maintaining order.

In prehistoric times, religion was probably key in establishing civilization on a scale larger than the extended family. Respecting and obeying the family patriarch is a cultural universal, and an invisible white-bearded (yeah, invisible with a white beard) undying patriarch of the entire tribe likely bootstrapped society.

I think most people would continue to be civilized without supernatural coercion. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of boobs who need a list of rules and a scary enforcer in the sky to stop them from becoming thieving murderers and chasing after their neighbor's ass. Maybe we need missionaries of reason going door to door, peddling a system of ethics grounded in rationalism.

. . . whichever is necessary in the moment--and that includes controlling them by killing them. This is done whenever it is deemed necessary by leaders of the god-brainwashed masses to invoke the will of a Savage Sky Daddy in order to justify one's inhumanity against fellow human beingsby using God as the ultimate cover for the killing.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 12:11PM by steve benson.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 10:23AM by steve benson.

And you seem hell-bent on ignoring the monstrosities of your State's and her allies' war crimes. The magnitude of those crimes is exponentially larger than whatever it is you are imagining in your god-centred fantasy.

It is you who is trying to change the subject, as you always do because of your urge to blame the world's woes on atheism when it is the history of religious violence that Jefferson was so concerned about.

You have given me, once again, Human, utterances from your own mouth proving your hang-ups with the "unholy." Take a good hard look at the unholy acts of religious madmen that have roiled the planet through the ages in the name of the perverse deity you are trying so hell-bent hard to excuse and/or ignore. Atheists scare you because, deep down, Human, you are a scared believer whose doubts are awakened by non-believers who don't buy your bull (you're having a hard enough time buyng it yourself). Thanks for walking into your own buzzsaw. I knew you'd end up doing it.

:)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 12:20PM by steve benson.

"Unfortunately, there are still plenty of boobs who need a list of rules and a scary enforcer in the sky to stop them from becoming thieving murderers and chasing after their neighbor's ass."

Do our prisons today have a disproportionately high percentage of atheists? I don't think so. Most reasonable people don't go around committing crimes...not because they're afraid of eternal punishment, but because they recognize that there are real world consequences to their actions.

> Do our prisons today have a disproportionately
> high percentage of atheists? I don't think so.
> Most reasonable people don't go around committing
> crimes...not because they're afraid of eternal
> punishment, but because they recognize that there
> are real world consequences to their actions.

I agree with you to some extent: many people don't commit crimes because of the "real world consequences" in the form of punishment. However, we are social animals, and most non-sociopaths are good to other people because it's in our nature. The fact that beggars don't die in an affluent society is a testament to our inherent altruism. (The existence of beggars in an affluent society is another issue.)

If 10% of people would do harm to others as long as they wouldn't get caught, we may still need that invisible watcher/enforcer to coerce them. A few will still slip through the net, continuing to do harm regardless of temporal or eternal consequences, but the reduction in the number of harmful people is beneficial to society at large.

To the extent that religion prevents harm, it helps the group. If religion limited itself to punishment in the eternities, I wouldn't mind it as much. Unfortunately, it's easily used as a tool for power: "Give me 10% of your increase or God'll be mad at you", "We need to kill the infidels", "Science is wrong because it contradicts my fairy" - all these are abuses of religion for the personal benefit of those who spear for deity. I suppose that's what happens when you mix politics with religion: the accumulation of power over others because God has your back.

So what can replace religion's positive role in maintaining civil behavior without giving icky people a tool to control others in pursuit of their own agenda? Without the supernatural, can society prevent the harm done by people who do a cost-benefit analysis of crime, but fear eternal punishment?

I have little confidence that reason is a kind of panacea that guarantees goodness. To that extent I agree with Tal.

But it seems to me that a true committment to reason at least results in a certain kind of humility. As with sincere religious belief, such a committment requires deference to an objectivity external to the person. But, contrary to most religious belief, a committment to reason also engenders respect for differences with others on questions where reason itself comes up short.

And a commmittment to reason could serve as a basis for bringing people together. As intellectual beings, people share an instinctive committment to reason. Religion can bring people together, but it can also serve to divide people. And religion can divide people sharply, with little respect for those who disagree.

Got any better suggestions for how to deal with it, other than to point out the irrational destructive and poisonous nature of God as your killing machjne? And who ever said that reason was a panacea? Please point out the use of that term to justify invoking it as you have in typical strawman fashion. Debate 101. You lose.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 10:21AM by steve benson.

This comment seems a little over-reactive.

True, I am the only one who, heretofore, employed the word "panacea," but I'm allowed since I was describing my view.

In addition, I have no problem pointing out the poisonous or destructive nature of anything, including the way in which hyper-rationalism (as opposed to a sincere committment to reason) can result in sanctimonious blog posts.

. . in its power to educate and influence the behavior, thinking and choices of human beings. Certainly you would prefer its use over the hokum of primitive magic, superstitious beliefs and "world"views reflective of the simple-minded and limited perspectives of illiterate sheepherders passing along God's Bible "truth" through storytelling chats around the fire conduct4ed by, for and of of the gullible believers involved.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 12:04PM by steve benson.

Yes, I do have a lack of confidence in reason. But not in its power to influence. My lack of confidence is in its power to get things right. Attempts to reason can go off the rails rather quickly, as a survey of intellectual history would, I believe, confirm. In addition, reason has, heretofore, been impotent to demonstrate as truths some of the most basic propositions almost all of us cling to, such as that other minds exist, that it is wrong to torture babies, and that the universe didn't come into existence 3 minutes ago with all memories and fossils intact. But, still, I would prefer it to hokum or superstition (almost by definition).

Steve, that point you made about the dominant male lion reminds me of my father. When my brothers and I reached puberty, he stepped up his punishment to break our will. He tried to cripple our masculinity by calling us girls. "My daughter, Donna," he said of me. One time he ambushed me in the hallway and beat me up in a blind rage. He put me in a boy's ranch to get me out of the house and cowed my two younger brothers into submission.

His justification for the abuse? Religion.

. . . using fear, control, threats and violence driven by blind instinct. Welcome to the world of primitive, uninformed religion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 12:10PM by steve benson.

I think this might prove Steve's point more, if we use the example of the Lafferty Brothers--http://www.religionnewsblog.com/8096/1984-lafferty-case-still-haunts

or Cody Judy--http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/22886/Fireside-disrupted-with-threat-of-bomb.html

But the worst of all is all of the child molesters that have used the church as their own playground, and then to have the religion either cover it up and/or blame the victim.

Everyone can be a little weird or even insane. The problem is that religion seems to institutionalize and indoctrinate the "crazy" into its members.

Thank you for writing that about child molesters. My father was a serial pedophile and should have

been locked up and had the key thrown away. He molested me on several occasions, he molested one

of my sons and raped my oldest son when he was between 2 or 3 years old..that would be his

first grandchild and grandson. Who knows who else he got to

I have suspicions but no proof. I knew something had happened to my oldest son but we didn't know

who did it. I spent eight days with him in the hospital while they did repair surgery.


It was forty years ago and I had to be dumber than a door knob because I didn't know that men did that

to little boys. I thought they just molested girls. It never occurred to me that my father would

do something that violent to his own grandson. My son did not tell me about my dad until after my dad

was dead. He knew I would believe him and he was afraid of what I might do to my father.

He was right. I think the very worst was to tell this to my sister and have her tell me that

she wasn't saying anything to her husband (a bishop at the time)I guess she didn't want to ruin his

opinion of my dad. So far, I have never forgiven her for that.

My dad was emotionally, verbally, sexually, and physically abusive.


The day he died, I shed tears...of relief that he was gone out of my life. But daddy dearest was

burried in his temple clothing. I remember the desire to stick him with a pin to make sure he was

really dead.

TB: It is overly simple to the point of unreasonable to equate "positive outcomes" with "reason" (or empirically justified beliefs), and "negative outcomes" with "unreason" (or empirically unjustified beliefs).

COMMENT: Yes. But this misses the point. The question is not whether reason "equates" with positive outcomes or empirically justified beliefs, whereas unreason (e.g. religion) "equates" with negative outcomes or empirically unjustified beliefs.

There are no deductive correlations here, and no one would rationally claim such, especially when morality is at issue. Rather the question is whether individuals are in the long run better served by exercising rational thought as a starting point to determining truth, as opposed to blind obedience to authority, religious or otherwise; and indirectly whether society is better served when individuals have such a predisposition. This, of course, does not mean that religious faith must be abandoned. It only suggests that it must be filtered through potentially preemptive rational processes.

Reason is not infallible as a source of truth, as PhELPS points out. Moreover, it may even turn out that religion gets some social policy right (as your example involving Native American earth worship). But don't you agree that notwithstanding the imperfections and limitations of human thought, our starting point for determining truth, in any context, should be reason and rationality, and not what someone might insist we blindly do or believe based upon a metaphysical worldview that is dismissive of reason and rationality?

When reason appears inconclusive, I personally place a great premium on intuition as default position for truth, e.g. the intuition of human freewill. But even here, the role of reason cannot be denied. Thus, when reason suggests that cherished beliefs are false, whatever their source, we need to be prepared to take a second look. Religion, it seems to me, denies that, and in this sense it sets the dictates of religion as the preferred priority in the determination of truth. That is what is dangerous.

___________________________________________

TB: A lie can be more effective than the truth in leading to a positive outcome, or a survival advantage, and this is one reason questions of ethics are more complex than commonly supposed.

COMMENT: So what? In evolutionary terms, considering solely reproduction and survival of the individual, it, of course, has that potential. But the fact that it "can" be more effective is hardly a recommendation for its broad endorsement.

Moreover, is this how human beings judge "positive outcomes" or moral imperatives? Questions of morality and ethics are more complex precisely because they transcend the survival fitness of individuals. And notice that notwithstanding the difficult nature of morality, reason still offers insight into these complex decisions. When faced with a moral dilemma, should we think about evolution; about our survival and reproduction, and then justify a lie? Or should a lie be justified, if at all, by the rational assignment of a moral imperative based upon the context of the dilemma? The lies of religion are not based upon reason; they are based upon a metaphysical worldview that by fiat trumps reason. Now, maybe that leads to a net positive outcome for some, but I doubt it.

Hint: Abandon racist, reactionary, revolting religious justifications for killing in the name of designated all-powerful, all-knowing and all truth-possessing gods of human creation. They only get in the way of living.

To tough to contemplate or attempt? Then back to the cave you go to either suck your thumb in hopelessness or to beat your chest in preparation for the next heaven-declared war against the ungodly.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 07:22PM by steve benson.

No, it is not overly simplistic.

Reason -- Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.[1]

How is the negation of that, not making sense of things, not applying logic, not establishing and verifying facts, and not changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information?

The latter is what gets people to jump to conclusions, and give knee jerk reactions that lead to UNWARRANTED conflict.

As I pointed out before, the lies of religion work well for things like war, but wouldn't a better solution be to use reason to come to a solution without killing others or going to war?

Yes, lies (propaganda) may work well for waging war, but reason is better at resolving the issue before war is the only resort.

Take your lack of water example. Reason (science) may be able to find solutions, wells, getting water from plants or the ocean, conservation and reconciling (all of them require honesty to work best) than using propaganda (lies) to fight wars that might not even be necessary if reason had been used to find a solution first.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 04:06PM by MJ.

Don't have time to type much here, and I'll respond in more detail later; but a huge point being missed is this:

It is very naive, and I think entirely unscientific, to suppose that reason and science in some way sanctify, or morally improve, the human animal intrinsically. They don't - at least there is no evidence for this, and a virtual infinity of evidence against it.

At the same time, it is entirely true that different incentive structures can lead to different behavioural outcomes. That is just a fact. What is *not* a fact is the absurd notion that the biological constraints we know as human nature can be wholly transformed and purified by reason and science. To believe this is to believe in a fantasy - and a fantasy clearly contradicted by everything we know about the human animal from many different branches of science, including biology, anthropology, and psychology.

I am not arguing from a position of religious faith. I am arguing from a position of overwhelming empirical evidence and (I think) strictest reason. Neither religion, nor reason, can "save" the human animal. Our behaviour can improve or degenerate based on circumstances; but underneath, and through it all, we remain human animals. No amount of reason, science, or religion can change that.

TB: It is very naive, and I think entirely unscientific, to suppose that reason and science in some way sanctify, or morally improve, the human animal intrinsically. They don't - at least there is no evidence for this, and a virtual infinity of evidence against it.

COMMENT: First, what do you believe that the human animal is "intrinsically?" Don't you have to decide that before you can make a judgment as to how reason and science might affect a person's moral character? If you think that the "human animal" is nothing more than a biological machine, that responds to the environment solely through rote, algorithmic processes, and that freewill is an illusion, then what you have is a problem with morality itself, not just a problem of how reason and science relate to human nature.

If, on the other hand, you believe that human beings are autonomous, conscious agents, who generally have a moral sense based loosely upon common intuitions of human dignity and a respect for others, then reason and science can inform one's moral choices, and thereby improve them and the person's moral character. In that case, we can decide what goals and incentives are morally worthy, and how best to achieve them.

Thus, for example, by careful reasoning I might conclude that preserving the earth will have a positive effect on human beings; that global warming is true; and thus that the issue of global warming has moral significance. Thank you science! Then, I might judge that curbing greenhouse gas emissions is a moral issue because of such adverse effects. I can then by my reason enhance my moral understanding of that issue through judging the effects of global warming on future generations. A religious fanatic might determine to leave the matter in God's hands. Which perspective serves the unbridled moral sense on this issue? Are they morally neutral? If you think they are, then again, your problem is with morality per se, not with human nature.

________________________________________________

TB: At the same time, it is entirely true that different incentive structures can lead to different behavioural outcomes. That is just a fact.

COMMENT: Psychological incentive structures and their effects can be rationally weighed by autonomous agents, and behavior can be modified accordingly. That is what it means to be an autonomous agent. Moreover, this is a necessary view of humanity for morality to get off the ground.

__________________________________________________

TB: What is *not* a fact is the absurd notion that the biological constraints we know as human nature can be wholly transformed and purified by reason and science. To believe this is to believe in a fantasy - and a fantasy clearly contradicted by everything we know about the human animal from many different branches of science, including biology, anthropology, and psychology.

COMMENT: Morality does not require that human nature be "wholly" transformed by moral reasoning. We actually know very little about the "human animal" because whatever we know biologically or psychologically, we also know that human beings are conscious selves, and by all appearances are autonomous agents that make moral distinctions, and make decisions based upon those distinctions. And they do this with an intrinsic ability to apply rationality to their beliefs and judgments.

The above view is not a "fantasy." It is based upon my own subjective experience, as well as the subjective experiences of countless other human beings (including you) who appear to have common moral intuitions underlined by human respect and dignity, even if such intuitions are difficult to pin down in a systematic way.

(Note: I also think that science and reason can inform our moral intuitions as related to our treatment of non-human animals, but that is a different post)

It is unrealistic to believe that one gets better results by abandoning reason, logic and science for unreasonable, illogical and unscientific.

Hell, even using using propaganda, lies and religion to fight wars is best used according to a well reasoned, well planned stratify rather than unorganized religious fervor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 07:00PM by MJ.

MJ - I did not argue, and would never argue, that there is a universal law that humanity necessarily gets better by abandoning reason, logic and science. I am merely stating that nothing in science supports the notion that humanity "gets better" overall, in any permanent way.

Moral gains can, and often are, reversed in mere moments, such that they cannot be considered as "improvements to human nature". Consider Sam Harris's defenses of the strappado torture technique and pre-emptive genocide even where there is no evidence of an imminent or planned enemy attack (and in the name of reason). Those are things we might hear from a medieval Catholic potentate - which is entirely understandable, given that Sam, and the rest of us, are biologically identical to medieval Catholic potentates.

Bottom line here is that science provides no support for the notion that the human animal is morally improving in his/her nature, or even *can* be improved morally overall in any meaningful or intransigent way, such that those "gains" could not be reversed in a moment. However, it is true that we can discover more effective ways of organizing social/incentive structures (whether religious, non-religious, or somewhere in between) so as to lead to particular outcomes; but what those outcomes *ought* to be is not something within the purview of science - which rather leads us back to somewhere near where we began. However it might irritate us, science says nothing about ultimate questions of good and evil.

Still don't have time to respond in detail, but I will asap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 11:20PM by Tal Bachman.

As I have pointed out more than once, when it comes to survival, the most likely chance for survival is to use reason to solve the problem, not abandon reason and start killing each others.

The Nazis claimed they were acting in regards to the survival of the human race. They abandoned reason, do you think survival of the human race was best served?

I certainly do not, but they match what you claim does.

Perhaps if you made a valid point rather than throwing out a lot of words hoping something sticks, people might actually get your point.

You have argued that abandoning reason and going to war would be a get better results in your drought scenario. And I agree, for fighting a war, religion is a great tool, but only if it is used with a well reasoned strategy. Nazis were able to use it quite successfully until an irrational leader believed his own rhetoric. I would think that science showing that the Nazis were not the master race took the steam out of the idea that the irrational unscientific claims to justify genocide.

Here is another thing to think about.

Say there are two detectives on a police force.

1) A Mormon with a lifetime of training to rely on feelings and faith in his Faith to find truth.

2) An atheist with a lifetime of training in using the scientific method of finding the truth.

There was a murder. The person that calls in the murder is Thomas S. Monson claiming that he saw you running away from the scene of the crime with the murder weapon.

Which detective would you want investigating your crime? Which detective would you think would likely have the more moral approach to investigating your case?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2015 12:06AM by MJ.

Steve,

You're just smokin' on this thread and the other on-going related threads. Beautiful writing.

Well, ever since you declared that every-sperm-is-sacred, I've suspected that you'd gone full anti-rational.

I'm glad to see you owning up to this fact.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 11:47PM by archytas.