• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Ch. 5: The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False

#64: Mar. - May 2009 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:In this sense, the goal of objectivity is that rational judgment should base values on facts. As a coherent system of thought, atheism seeks to base its values on facts, arguing that Christianity’s values are based on fantasy.
In a sense. It is a rather broad comparison. Depending if you consider atheism a movement as comparable to Christianity or not I suppose. I don't think that it is. There would undoubtedly be certain conditions you should have to meet to be considered a -ity as opposed to an -ism.

:book:
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Yes, from the modern humanist framework of autonomy, but no if we argue a moral authority can be external and objective. In a sense, Darwin argued for such an external basis in the theory of cumulative adaptation, and Dawkins develops this with his observation of the genetic basis of empathy in The Selfish Gene.
I don't see how you can argue that Darwin ever advocated moral authority as external and objective when in fact Darwin saw moral sense as a product of evolution.

Darwin The Descent of Man: "No tribe could hold together if murder, robbery, treachery, &c., were common; consequently such crimes within the limits of the same tribe 'are branded with everlasting infamy'; but excite no such sentiment beyond these limits."

I would be interested to hear about your sources of information here, not the least among other comments you have made.

:book:
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Grim: "You would 'so what' enlightenment?"

Nope, unless the context were that it was all divine inspiration. Context, context.


Robert, saying that all metaphysical claims of religion are false is a good example of skepticism. There is no reason to think any metaphysical claims are true, since there is no evidence through either empiricism or rationalism. The burden of proof isn't on Hitchens.

As an objective moral authority, evolution doesn't count. Our selfish genes reflect manifested altruism on the organism level, but this is an aspect of the propogation of genes. We find meaning in the behavioral forces that compel us to act certain ways, and call that meaning morality. It is evolutionarily beneficial for us to kill a competing male that isn't from our in-group, but such an act is overridden by our reason and declared immoral in today's society. This results from our understanding that what we consider an in-group versus out-group is relative, and to progress as a species we must consider all humans to be in-group.

The truest moral authority is then our reasoning. We must consider as best we can how another person wants to be treated, and treat them in that way. That it isn't objective doesn't reduce it's importance. To strive for an objective source is to never find the answer, which is subjective. We have to work with the tools we're given.

An example of this can be found in college courses that teach qualitative assessment. Quantitative(as opposed to qualitative) assessment is highly valued and has been used everywhere in corporate America due to it's objectivity. Recently, corporations are realizing that quantitative assessments do not accurately capture the values of what they are trying to assess. So they turn to qualitative assessment. The problem is that qualitative assessment is subjective, but even with this limitation, accurate and valuable assessments and deliberations can be made.

RT: "I am applying a rational criterion to the selection of Biblical ideas, namely whether they are compatible with science."

Whether or not biblical ideas are compatible with science seems irrelevant in this context. The discussion is about the ideas that aren't compatible with science, the metaphysical. This includes the connection you propose between the bible and the cosmos. Just because the workings of our solar system and the signs of the zodiac may be empirically analyzed, doesn't mean any proposed connection between that and the bible can be analyzed. A base of scientific analysis, mixed with a dash of magical metaphysics, and voila!, we have morality a la carte!

RT: "It certainly looks a far better option than the atheist rejection of theology on principle."

I don't reject it on principle. If you posted something here that lent any credibility to theology in how it applies to modern life, I would appraise it for what it's worth. To me, it isn't even an option, there is nothing there but man-made tales(which I don't consider theology). We may trust the wisdom of men who wrote the book in some cases, but that is a tribute to them as the authors, not to the bible as a book. When they wrote of such things as gods and resurrections and metaphysical connections, this is where you are searching for the key to unlock human goodness it seems(Christ is tied to the cosmos!). First, if there were such a thing as the key to unlock human goodness, it would be found in the areas written with pragmatic human wisdom, not metaphysical hodgepodge. Second, what makes you think such a key exists at all? You'll looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow I fear.

RT: "Maybe there are other scientific mysteries locked with the opacity of the Bible?"

What a testament that would be to one or more of it's authors, who would have to have been far ahead of their time, similar to Da Vinci! It would be a shame for them to have hidden their discoveries in the bible rather than publish them openly. You say there may be 'other' scientific mysteries in the bible. Did I miss the first one that was mentioned? Or was is a cryptic allusion that you personally interpreted to represent a scientific idea?
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Nope, unless the context were that it was all divine inspiration. Context, context.
Regardless, you don't think that perhaps the ends may justify the means slightly?

:book:
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Unread post

You may notice that in several posts i mention certain references in the bible that i do not deny hold some degree of truth. What i am saying is that these works should stand or fall on their own merit, as i said earlier. That means i should be able to pick up a copy of the bible right next to Atlas Shrugged and evaluate both on their content, not a pre- conception that one will automatically contain divine truth while the other is the mere scribbling of hapless humans.

My assertion that there is nothing special or transcendent about the bible is no different than your own assertion that there is.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Grim, I don't think the ideas in question are about justification. Rather, it's over explanatory concepts that are either verified or falsified. Though it does seem to be an attempt by Robert to go from an 'is' to an 'ought', or an objective set of 'oughts'.
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Grim, I don't think the ideas in question are about justification. Rather, it's over explanatory concepts that are either verified or falsified. Though it does seem to be an attempt by Robert to go from an 'is' to an 'ought', or an objective set of 'oughts'.
Monks interested in science is a question of justification? I suppose I could live with that, but must they really be dissected over 'explanatory concepts' which judge their lives and discoveries 'verified or falsified'? Mendel is not even that classical of an example; regardless the implications and importance of his work defy the association to his occupation. If he were not a priest he may not have been in a position to make his observations and inferences.

:book:
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

wissssshhhh......

Much of the Renaissance (but not all of it) was based on religious idealism or sponsored by wealthy European religious establishments, but hey...'so what.'

:book:
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

'So what' in regards to what? If you're using that fact as support for a claim, then it would be in the same context I used before.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Unread post

i don't think anyone has said that if you are a religious scientist anything you did was categorically useless, Grim.

As you indicated many of the great works of the renaisance were produced by or for religious people. They can be celebrated as fantastic advances while not being helped or hampered by their religious association.

The fact that religious institutions sponsored these works does not give the church credit for the renaissance, if that is what you are implying.
Post Reply

Return to “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - by Christopher Hitchens”