Hi friends

I want to try to convince you of something: bad ideas about how we ought to live are as likely to come from reason/science/atheism, as revelation/superstition/theism, and we are foolish if we don't recognize that. I know it's hard to believe after Mormonism; yet it's as true as it is sad.

Just to recap one example I mentioned recently on here, Richard Dawkins has railed against the "danger" of theism-derived morality for four solid decades. But consider some of Dawkins's reason- and science-derived moral views:

1.) It is "immoral" for a mother not to abort her unborn Down's Syndrome child, if she can possibly abort it;

2.) Date-rape isn't really as bad as stranger-rape (even though researchers have shown that victims report virtually identical levels of trauma);

3.) Repeatedly raping and molesting a child is "arguably less harmful" than teaching that child to believe in God;

4.) A sober (married) man who beds a female stranger near alcoholic blackout deserves no condemnation; *the female stranger does*, if she later dares to accuse the man of sexual assault.

I don't know about you, but I find those views weird, disgusting, and dangerous. They are frankly far more objectionable than anything we'd ever find in an "Ensign" magazine these days.

But Dawkins's views aren't the only example of my point. Consider a few of the views of another famous skeptic and anti-religion crusader. See if you can guess who it is (I'll give book and page references and names at the bottom of the thread):

1.) Torturing people is not only okay, but should be made easier for torturers: victims should be given a "paralytic" so they don't scream and writhe as much;

2.) A good torture device to use would be the strappado. It was used during the Spanish Inquisition, and was a big favorite at Auschwitz. In it, a torture victim is hung by a rope attached to his hands, which are tied behind his back (sometimes weights are attached to the victim to increase the pain);

3.) Murdering people only for holding certain beliefs may be "ethical";

4.) The United States military should invade any country lacking a "civil society" (regardless of whether they pose any threat or not), and impose an American-style "civil society" by force, where economic sanctions alone don't effect this change;

5.) Even if there is no reason to believe that a particular "Islamist" nation with nuclear weapons would ever act against the United States, the United States should launch a full-tilt nuclear strike against them anyway, *even though that would incinerate "tens of millions of innocent civilians"*.

If Pat Robertson had said this stuff, people on here would go berserk. But he didn't. A leading skeptic popular with ex-Mormons did.

Can you guess who it was? (No Googling! :)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 02:23PM by Tal Bachman.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Pat Robertson had said this stuff, people on
> here would go berserk. But he didn't. A popular
> ex-Mormon hero, and leading skeptic, did.
>
> Can you guess who it was? (No Googling! :)

Ex-mormon hero and leading skeptic? That can only be Steve Benson!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 05:21AM by rt.

(Sandra Tanner's an evangelical Christian, not an atheist). But no, none of those.

Sorry, I edited my answer while you were replying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 05:23AM by rt.

Good old Christopher Hitchens

And just because both sides have terrible ideas doesn't mean they are equally likely to.

These terrible ideas haven't really been implemented on a large scale like many religious ideas and are not doctrine or fundamental principles in any sense.

Science and logic has contributed so much to this world. To say "here are some horrible ideas that have never been implemented. Ergo, the products of science are just as atrocious as the products of religion." is ridiculous. To call me sad for believing religion results in more bad ideas about "how we ought to live" is insulting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 11:43AM by celloman.

Sounds like Sam Harris to me, but I only read one of his books.

Christopher Hitchens

I won't give it away, but I just did some googling on the subject with astonishing results.

Happy to report that I don't care for that person anyway.

The problem I have with your entire premise here is combining the opinions of people against systems of fact finding.

Everyone has opinions and beliefs which may or may not be founded on appropriate factual evidence.

OTOH, while science may have guided incorrectly in the past, the system of science is self correcting over time. Any incorrect opinion will be examined and the scientific opinion as a whole will modify as the facts become evident. I can't say this is true for revelation, superstition, and systems that support theism.

You are asking the kinds of questions that are situational. I think I could come up with examples of the situations you outline above in which you would say yes and situations where you would say no.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are asking the kinds of questions that are
> situational. I think I could come up with examples
> of the situations you outline above in which you
> would say yes and situations where you would say
> no.

No, Dagny. No. There is nothing "situational" about torture, despite what propaganda like "24" taught a generation of Americans.

And this guy isn't just giving opinions. He has consistently claimed his morality is derived from Science. In fact, he's infamous for this fallacy.

Human,

Here's one situation. Let's say it is OK for one man to be tortured to pay for the sins of billions of people. I can show you millions of people who not only think that is moral, they worship it.

Yes I agree that most of it is 24 style situational BS.

One thing I've realized is that moral decisions are not so black and white. That's what Tal is not addressing.

Also, to Tal and Human,

I'd like to say that scientists can claim science is some kind of arbitrator of morals, but it doesn't work that way. The standard of evidence is met or it is not. I don't think this is going to be easy for science since we can't really agree on what is moral (biological survival?) and what the evidence should be that can be measured in a scientific way.

Ethics requires a lot of study which I'm confident many scientists and theologians have contemplated.

It is not the same situation to me as when someone defers to "god said so" as a moral authority. There is no standard of evidence once someone involves the authority from a god. The only evidence they accept is anything that agrees with what they already decided the god wants.


I think we both have made out points. I think the readers can see the merits of all our discussions.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If Pat Robertson had said this stuff, people on
> here would go berserk. But he didn't. A leading
> skeptic popular with ex-Mormons did.
>


Unlike Pat, who claims authority based on God, the skeptic does not claim to have any authority other his own personal views.

And you are not going berserk over a single person's opinion?

Wow.

I'd never heard of Skeptics of Particular Note when I realized I no longer believed in god(s). I got to the point where I thought, "I just don't believe this junk I was taught."

I'm not surprised to find that many many many people famous and not so much say and do some pretty friggin' messed up crap.

Yeah, Tal's doing his shit-disturber thing, but so what?

The Skeptics of Particular Note are *not* god(s): some are hawkish, some are dovish, some are kinda crap people, some aren't - they are human and as such are capable of saying and doing crap things. And this whole Four Horseman thing? Ugh.

When I read the introduction to _The Believing Brain_, the weird thing I latched onto was that Shermer is an Objectivist. I had to put the book down and think about whether my immediate response, which was "Ugh," was going to color how I processed what I was about to read. Maybe it did.

Dawkins: _The God Delusion_ cured my insomnia.

Hitch: Whoa! Scary ass hawk.

Harris: Johnny Come Lately Pretty Boy who still subscribes to much woo. I have no idea how he got to where he is.

Dennett: I have no idea who he is.

So, what's my point? My point is that you can be a skeptic simply by using your brain. Books are cool. Books are meant to entertain, enlighten, make $ for the author, make a point - whatever. Fine. I like books. But you don't have to be a devotee of some faction of New Atheism, Old Atheism, Postmodern Atheism (I hope I made that up and it doesn't exist), I mean, c'mon. Who cares? I understand that atheists are usually outcasts, and I understand the difficulty of saying that you don't believe in god in a society where that is not the norm. I get it. But c'mon. Pedestals are ugly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 02:19PM by Beth.

That's a good summary, Beth.

I'm disappointed that the difference between "here are my opinions" and "these are things the all-powerful god of the universe demands you do" wasn't mentioned at all.

As neither atheism nor skepticism include any kind of "moral code," or doctrine, or dogma, or imperatives, the idea that someone who IS an atheist or skeptic expressing their opinion somehow means these are atheist or skeptics' "morality" is absurd. Not a one of them is demanding that everyone agree with them or that everyone do what they state as their opinion.

If you don't agree with their opinions, you're free to say so -- and to make good, rational arguments as to your disagreement. Just like they're free to give their opinions in the first place. It's not like a religion, where Pat Roberston (or Thomas Monson) stand up and tell you want to think or do, and then insist it's a "command of god," and that your "soul" is in jeopardy if you don't agree.

That's an important point.

If anyone expresses their views, it's just their views. The facts either support their views or they don't according to our understanding and application of the evidence. This is why external verification of facts is important. It's often just a preference or situational view. We weigh the argument as readers which is what we do with Dawkins or with Tal.

HOWEVER,

When someone adds the god factor, that is an admission that they are appealing to authority to try and make their views credible.

There is a huge difference between someone saying that vanilla is a better flavor than chocolate and someone saying that god favors vanilla over chocolate.

Even Mormons comprehend this problem when they resort to their "he was speaking as a man" tripe.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> HOWEVER,
>
> When someone adds the god factor, that is an
> admission that they are appealing to authority to
> try and make their views credible.

And Tal's example is someone appealing to the authority of science to try and make his views more credible.

Pretending Tal's guy is just some dude randomly spouting an opinion is preposterous. It's not just some guy, nor is his claims mere opinions. He pushes them as OUGHTS which he has derived from his very dangerous (and bullsh.itty) views on what IS.

Human Wrote:

> And Tal's example is someone appealing to the
> authority of science to try and make his views
> more credible.
>
> Pretending Tal's guy is just some dude randomly
> spouting an opinion is preposterous. It's not just
> some guy, nor is his claims mere opinions. He
> pushes them as OUGHTS which he has derived from
> his very dangerous (and bullsh.itty) views on what
> IS.

No, actually, that's not the case. Other than it not being "just some dude." The thing is, though, most atheists and skeptics don't do appeal to authority fallacies like the religious do. There's very little (if any), "Ooh, this guy is an atheist/skeptic leader, so everything he says is 'gospel' going on.

As an example, I'm disgusted both by Dawkins' "abort a down syndrome baby" and by the dishonest reporting of that opinion. If you go read the transcript where it was said, you'll notice he said "If it were me," and didn't use any 'science' to back it up. Yet it's nearly always claimed that he DID say (or imply) that everyone should do this, and implied (or stated outright) that he claimed 'science' to back it up. Most atheists/skeptics ignored the comment, being his own opinion and clearly stated as such. The only people who got all upset about it were those trying to make him (wrongly) into some kind of 'atheist law giver.'

Celloman:

1.) It's not Christopher Hitchens:

2.) You have mischaracterized my argument. I did not take issue with science or reason as a way of discovering facts about the world. I took issue with the claim that they provide a more reliable guide for understanding how we should live. Illustrating that was the point of my examples;

3.) Rotten ideas coming from non-theism *have* been implemented on a large scale before, so I feel it's perfectly fair to try to nip such ideas in the bud.

Dagny:

1.) No. Dawkins and the author in question are claiming that atheism, reason, and science DO constitute a system which yields information about how we should live. I am trying to show that that claim is incorrect by simply examining what the results of their figurings are;

If their moral views are flawed, as you imply, then what it at least means is that those two "experts" are a joke when they claim the backing of atheism, reason, and science for their views. And at most, it simply means that - quite apart from their claims - atheism, science, and reason do not comprise a reliable way of discovering how we *ought* to live;

Beth:

1.) Maybe I'm "shit-disturbing", but I think it's entirely warranted on a board with people who not so long ago claimed that a single passage in an "Ensign" article encouraging modest dress promoted "rape culture", yet who are still in thrall to the arrogant, buffoon, (frequently sexist) alpha-twerps claiming to be paragons of rationalist, atheist, scientific purity, but who spread noxious nonsense like the above *by the authority of atheism, reason, and science*.

They're bullies and frauds, and their moral views should be strictly scrutinized, and in many cases, ignored. I mean, if an Islamist Indonesia gets the bomb, should we really instantly atomically incinerate "tens of millions of innocent Indonesians"? That's what this author says. He's openly advocating GENOCIDE (!) on very dubious grounds. And yet, people on here are still calling him one of their heroes. Really? Advocates of genocide are ex-Mormon "heroes", as long as they claim the backing of "atheism" and "reason" and "science"? That is disgusting.

This is the thing about the world: whatever goon stomps his feet and screams and rattles his cage the loudest, is the one everyone ends up deferring to and admiring the most - men AND women - regardless of the merit of their actual message, and regardless of how "intellectual" and "skeptical" all their instant fans imagine themselves to be.

If we want to be "rational" and "scientific" and "skeptical", I think we ought to examine the actual content of what these guys say as closely as we examine what the likes of Pat Robertson and "Dipshit Dave" Bednar say.

Tal wrote:

" Dawkins and the author in question are claiming that atheism, reason, and science DO constitute a system which yields information about how we should live. I am trying to show that that claim is incorrect..."

Sorry, you can't "show that claim is incorrect." Because it's not.

Let's examine this:

atheism: makes no claims of any kind, doesn't yeild any information, and none of the possible authors claims it does. So that part of your claim is a straw-man.

"reason and science" -- do these provide information about how we should live? Of course they do. Most of the time, both simply are methods for reaching reasonable conclusions or finding out facts. In either case, are reasonable conclusions and facts information we should NOT use in deciding how to live? Are you serious? Of course they are.

Now, to the real problem with your approach: do atheism, reason, or science -- or these authors in particular -- claim that atheism, reason, or science provide *demands* that we live particular ways? No, those things don't provide any such thing, and those authors don't claim any such thing.

Sorry, Tal -- you have no legs to stand on with this one. I know you don't *like* some (many?) of their opinions, but they're not claiming they're "absolutes," they're not demanding everyone live by them, and they're not claiming that their OPINIONS on how to live are shown to be facts by science or reason. You're arguing against a straw man. Time to let it go.

1) It doesn't really matter if it was from Christopher Hitchens or not.

2) Science is a way of thinking. Its a process of questioning already existing claims and demanding evidence for new ones. So I can confidently say that this process will yield more accurate and useful results on the subject of morality than from sources of revelation/superstition/the supernatural.

3) Atheism=non-theism is just the abscence of belief in God; to proceed to say that it has any affect on the moral claims people make is ridiculous. Even people inside religion have to act as their own moral agents in figuring out what version of God's commandments they subscribe to.

Edited to add space between point one and two for consistency.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 09:17PM by celloman.

Ah. The Bachman anti-atheist rampage continues.

You never commented on this excellent thread of mine:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1388272,1388272#msg-1388272

It was written in response to your attempts to demonize atheist public figures.

-------

edit:
One more thing, atheism and skepticism are not the same thing. I've met atheists who are not skeptics, and I've met theists who are skeptics. For example, an atheist who believes in homeopathic remedies is not a skeptic.

The skeptic label describes a person's approach to looking at evidence.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 03:28PM by archytas.

Archytas:

I'm not "demonizing" anyone. I am reporting (accurately) the moral views of prominent people in the atheist camp. If they thereafter look like demons to you, I suggest it's because of those views (and those have nothing to do with me). And by the way, I am not a theist. I have NO idea what is happening up there. For all I know, atheism could be true.

Though you remain in brute denial about it, the fact is that several of atheism's leading lights espouse moral views more noxious than anything we hear these days from Mormons, and they - directly and indirectly - attribute them to what they describe as a superior worldview based on atheism, reason, and science. There is no way around that.

I didn't bother to respond to the thread you mentioned because your comments there are as fallacy-ridden as those here, and there didn't seem to be any point in trying to reason with you.

By the way, I call your bluff on Dawkins. If you really agree with the views of his listed above (for which I posted references in my earlier thread), come out and say so. If you don't agree with them, join me in condemning them. If you won't do either, I suggest you can't be taken seriously as an interlocutor here.

Kolob: Anytime anyone tries to hold these people accountable for promoting their sick views, their defenders reflexively, mindlessly, baselessly claim - exactly like Mormon apologists - that others are "taking them out of context" and "misrepresenting" their views. But Richard Dawkins has been perfectly clear about his views, as has the author I'm quoting above. Your false claims don't erase the existence of their clear, printed words. The world is not magic.

Your specific claim about "if it were me" is not present in the Dawkins abortion tweet in question. See if you can believe your eyes when you read this:

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/502106262088466432

And notice how Dawkins uses the command form of the important verb.

Lastly, Human is spot-on in his/her response to Dagny. These people are promoting their views as true and universal, under the authority of atheism, reason, and science - and they claim that that authority is unassailable. That is NO different than what the religionists do. That one supposedly unassailable authority is supernatural, while the other is natural, makes NO meaningful difference, because (A) both camps describe the authority for their views as unassailable, and (B) both promote certain views which are disgusting and dangerous under that supposedly unassailable authority.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 06:20PM by Tal Bachman.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These people are promoting their views as
> true and universal, under the authority of
> atheism, reason, and science - and they claim that
> that authority is unassailable. That is NO
> different than what the religionists do. That one
> supposedly unassailable authority is supernatural,
> while the other is natural, makes NO meaningful
> difference, because (A) both camps describe the
> authority for their views as unassailable, and (B)
> both promote certain views which are disgusting
> and dangerous under that supposedly unassailable
> authority.

This is where I have to disagree. When religion makes a claim
reason and evidence do not matter. When a religious authority
(be it human or written) states something it is not to be
questioned. When a scientific authority says something it
usually IS questioned. My first time at a scientific
colloquium was a shock. The presenter was constantly
interrupted by challenges from a few professors in the
audience. I was somewhat embarrassed. My embarrassment left
after further colloquiums when I realized that this was the
standard, accepted procedure. My problem was that most of the
"meetings with a speaker" which I attended in my life had been
church meetings where quiet assent was the only acceptable
response

In the secular world when someone says something, be it
Dawkins, Hichens, or Bachman, it is just their opinion. It is
fair game for anyone to question it rigorously. THIS is the
difference been secular and religious discourse. The
introduction, or not, of the supernatural is of minor
importance in comparison.

Why not let him speak for himself?

http://bigthink.com/videos/letting-science-inform-morality

I found the last paragraph interesting

"You can, I suppose, make a utilitarian justification for obnoxious practices. You could make a utilitarian justification for torture. Moral philosophers sometimes pose the hypothetical case where the world is about to be blown up."

He seems to see the perils of utiliarianism, but falls prey to them as the quotes above demonstrate.

ladell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why not let him speak for himself?


Indeed, why not? From your link:

" Science is not in the business of shedding light on moral debates, but I think it can do sometimes -- the whole subject of moral philosophy, of examining moral questions in a logical way to expose inconsistencies, for example. When you're looking at moral questions, so-called moral questions, like abortion or euthanasia, you can show that people who take a very strong absolutist line may be being inconsistent with themselves because they are taking a strong line on one thing while at the same time inconsistently not taking a similarly strong line on another. So that would be a scientific way of thinking; it's not science per se. It's moral philosophy, but it's a kind of scientific way of thinking."

Let me emphasize for you: "it's not science per se. It's moral philosophy, but it's a kind of scientific way of thinking."

And there goes you claim that he's claiming science backs him up.

>"He seems to see the perils of utiliarianism, but falls prey to them as the quotes above demonstrate."

Wait, you mean sometimes he's hypocritical, and sometimes he doesn't do what he suggests others do? Gasp! You'd think he was human or something! OMG!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2014 07:00PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Hating Dawkins has become a sport, methinks. I still think he's not a demon, say compared to the GA,s or any major church's leaders.

It has been my misfortune to meet a few people who thought skeptic was a bad word. How they delighted in applying the title to me!

Sounds specious.