Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-06-24, 15:36:55

I find it a very difficult subject of analysis.

Analysis is a piece of cake. The hard part is to apply it in real life under actual pressing urgency. Then there's no time for analysis any more. It's time to apply the conclusion and stay true to oneself no matter what.

It's clearly related with mechanisms of guilt. Take the classic case of saving the mother and let the children die or save the children and let the mother die.
Any decision will kill one and we just don't want to feel responsible for killing either one or the other, because we value both equally.

Why do we have such mechanism, that's what is difficult to analyze. It's not clearly a mechanism to benefit survival, if we don't take any action probably both will die.
There's no place to "Darwinisms" and "evolutions" here.

There may be a way to sacrifice yourself in the process so you don't have to live with the guilt of having chosen one over another. I'm saying this without any irony. The situation must be properly thought through beforehand, the dilemma must be solved, and one of the real solutions is to sacrifice oneself instead of having to choose between other lives.

Obviously, innate human ethical functions exist to spank materialists and atheists to their senses.

I have to disagree: "Short-circuit" is indeed the ideal term! Logically, not making a decision is a failure of programming — perhaps even a Halt-And-Catch-Fire op-code! Either God or Evolution has asked that the whole mechanism be checked, for correct functioning.

Oakdale's going the right direction so I think - Which brings us to the consideration of "higher rules", but he's speaking about machines...

1. Religious belief has no serious intellectual content at all.  It is and always has been little more than superstition, the arguments offered in its defense have always been feeble rationalizations, and its claims are easily refuted.

2. Religious belief does have serious intellectual content, has been developed in interesting and sophisticated ways by philosophers and theologians, and was defensible given the scientific and philosophical knowledge available to previous generations.  But advances in science and philosophy have now more or less decisively refuted it.  Though we can respect the intelligence of an Aquinas or a Maimonides, we can no longer take their views seriously as live options.

3. Religious belief is still intellectually defensible today, but not as defensible as atheism.  An intelligent and well-informed person could be persuaded by the arguments presented by the most sophisticated contemporary proponents of a religion, but the arguments of atheists are at the end of the day more plausible.

Obviously one could take one of these attitudes towards some religions, and another of them towards other religions.  For example, a given atheist might take a type 1 atheist position with respect to Christianity and a type 2 atheist position with respect to Buddhism (or whatever).  Or he might take a type 1 attitude towards some versions of Christianity but a type 2 or type 3 attitude towards other versions of Christianity.

[...]

A. Religious practice is mostly or entirely contemptible and something we would all be well rid of.  The ritual side of religion is just crude and pointless superstition.  Religious morality, where it differs from secular morality, is sheer bigotry.  Even where certain moral principles associated with a particular religion have value, their association with the religion is merely an accident of history.  Moreover, such principles tend to be distorted by the religious context.  They certainly do not in any way depend on religion for their justification.

B. Religious practice has a certain admirable gravitas and it is possible that its ritual and moral aspects fulfill a real human need for some people.  We can treat it respectfully, the way an anthropologist might treat the practices of a culture he is studying.  But it does not fulfill any universal human need, and the most intelligent, well educated, and morally sophisticated human beings certainly have no need for it. 

C. Religious practice fulfills a truly universal or nearly universal human need, but unfortunately it has no rational foundation and its metaphysical presuppositions are probably false.  This is a tragedy, for the loss of religious belief will make human life shallower and in other ways leave a gaping void in our lives which cannot plausibly be filled by anything else.  It may even have grave social consequences.  But it is something we must find a way to live with, for atheism is intellectually unavoidable.

[...]

An A1 atheist, then, would be the most negative sort, especially if he took an A1 attitude towards most or all forms of religion.  A C3 atheist would be the most positive.

[...]

I find that atheists who fall on the most negative ends of these scales -- A1 territory -- are invariably the ones who are the least well-informed about what the religions they criticize actually believe, and the least rational when one tries to discuss the subject with them.  And when you think about it, even before one gets into the specifics it is pretty clear that A1 is prima facie simply not a very reasonable attitude to take about at least the great world religions.

As per atheist logic, since there's no evidence that anybody has any problem with my classification of atheists, therefore my classification is absolutely good for everyone.

As per atheist logic, since there's no evidence that anybody has any problem with my classification of atheists, therefore my classification is absolutely good for everyone.

Grownups, if they want to be considered rational, have to be able to justify everything.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-28, 05:42:17

Grownups, if they want to be considered rational, have to be able to justify everything.

No one on this planet can ultimately 'justify' anything.

However, the existence of an entity prior to the big bang has been shown to be false by science and therefore, for scientific purposes

Right, specifically you cannot justify nor explain nor get any points across. And it's totally convenient for you.

The "existence" of anything "before" the Big Bang is not capable of being considered within the theory. Period.

That is, when they use the phrase "for scientific purposes" they almost immediately go beyond scientific purposes.

The "existence" of anything "before" the Big Bang is not capable of being considered within the theory. Period. And yet some people persist in speculation... That is, when they use the phrase "for scientific purposes" they almost immediately go beyond scientific purposes.

Part of not having a belief is knowing when to stop.

Kuhn had the notion of scientific truths, science claims no truths.

Atheism is a belief--a belief in something other than gods to explain observable phenomena.

Surely, you jest

An atheist doesn't believe in god(s). That's not to say some atheists don't have other beliefs, just that that isn't what atheist means. You have turned scientific theory into a belief system so are easily confused by the distinction.

I don't think of science as a belief system, it's more fun than that.

You mean like tennis, without the net?

science never absolutely proves anything.

Tennis is all about physics.