Religious Nuts Kill Own Daughter—Is Their Sentence Appropriate?

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Let's take your definition of religion-- "embracing an organized superstition". For this to make any sense we have to define "superstition", I propose that a superstition is a widely held belief with no scientific backing.

Of course religion is a product of evolution.

It is obvious that religion is human nature, Widely held organized superstitions have been at the core of nearly every society throughout history history.

The evolutionary benefits are clear for social creatures such as are own. For our survival, we needed to form societies that were organized under a clear set of principles-- the principle varied from society to society, but every society developed a set of underlying beliefs that were very useful to forming functional societies.

Religion is as much a product of evolution as any other human trait-- music, art.

If religion isn't a part of evolution-- where would you say it comes from?

You can have a cultural belief system that isn't based on a myth. Why should it have to be? To answer your question, religions are common because they provide a story to negate the harsh truths of life, e.g. that everyone's body eventually fails permanently (death), and because they provide a simple (wrong) explanation of the mysteries of life (e.g. explaining why humans exist, what thunder and lightning are, etc.).

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Even if I accept your point... religion is still a product of evolution.

But let's attack the problem with your point. Give me one single example of a cultural belief system (other than you own of course) from all of human history that isn't based on myth.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Even if I accept your point... religion is still a product of evolution.

But let's attack the problem with your point. Give me one single example of a cultural belief system (other than you own of course) from all of human history that isn't based on myth.

Our cultural belief in the Scientific process and the utility of it. It is not based on myth but on practicality and testable experimentation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Our cultural belief in the Scientific process and the utility of it

First... everyone thinks their own system of cultural beliefs is based on truth. You are no different in this. This is why I suggested that you should find one other than your own.

Second, most of the important parts of what our culture believes-- from rights, to ideas of governence to morality (especially morality) have no backing in science. Science has nothing to say about morality.

Third, I don't know what culture you are talking about. Saying the US culture is based on scientific process is amusing. (In fact, this is part of the American mythology).

So... I will ask again (assuming that you follow the one true system of cultural beliefs) can you name another culture (that isn't your own) that isn't based on mythology?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
Our cultural belief in the Scientific process and the utility of it

First... everyone thinks their own system of cultural beliefs is based on truth. You are no different in this. This is why I suggested that you should find one other than your own.

You are incorrect. Science is not dependent on culture and the Belief in the utility of it transcends cultural barriers; because it is testable and measurable. It is a belief system which we can carry forward into the future with confidence, because it's not a bunch of religious myth-bullshit.

Quote:

Second, most of the important parts of what our culture believes-- from rights, to ideas of governence to morality (especially morality) have no backing in science. Science has nothing to say about morality.

You are wrong again. We regularly turn to science to help answer questions of morality. I doubt you could think of a single issue where Science has not been used to advance the understanding of morality, emotion, conflict, and what it means to be human.

On the other hand, Religions advance nothing at all. They actively stifle innovation and change, and act as a regressive force to humanity.

Quote:

Third, I don't know what culture you are talking about. Saying the US culture is based on scientific process is amusing.

Large parts of our culture are in fact based on belief and faith in the scientific process. That you would choose to ignore this is amusing as well.

Try studying up on that whole 'Renaissance' thing, and get back to me. 'Cause, if you don't think that our modern culture is based on the scientific process, you don't know much about Western society at all. The computer you type on, the clothes you wear, the car you drive, every single part of your life is heavily dependent on the scientific process - and TRUST in the process.

This is the primary reason why religion is on the decline, and science on the rise - you can trust that putting parts together in a certain way gives a certain result every time. You can't trust that praying to an invisible dude in the sky works, because there is no evidence that it does, and there likely never will be.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I doubt you could think of a single issue where Science has not been used to advance the understanding of morality, emotion, conflict, and what it means to be human.

Come on.... how does science answer any moral question? Go ahead, give me scientific answers (without relying on non-testable axioms) for anything

- Is capital punishment good or bad?
- Is abortion murder?
- Is rape evil?
- Should women be allowed to vote.

No, Cyclo, Science is not a religion-- which is why it doesn't have any opinions on issues of morality, or of the meaning of life.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I didn't say that Science was a religion; it is superior to any religion. By far.

You asked:

Quote:

Give me one single example of a cultural belief system (other than you own of course) from all of human history that isn't based on myth.

And I provided an answer.

As for the last post,

You will note that I didn't claim that Science 'answers' moral questions; instead, it helps us to advance our understanding of them. Please focus on what I actually said, instead of inventing straw-men to argue against.

Quote:

Come on.... how does science answer any moral question? Go ahead, give me scientific answers (without relying on non-testable axioms) for anything

- Is capital punishment good or bad?

Science helps us determine whether people are actually guilty of crimes. Before the scientific process, we had no way of knowing whether people were guilty of murder or other heinous crimes. Now we have methods which help us find out the truth, reliably. We also have improved methods of capital punishment which are less painful than older ones. These improvements help solve the moral questions that plague society by removing the fuzzy edges of doubt and allowing those who are interested to focus on the core issues.

Quote:

- Is abortion murder?

When does consciousness begin? Do babies feel pain? How early can they survive without the mother? Science helps us understand the things we need to know to intelligently answer this question.

Quote:

- Is rape evil?

This isn't much of a moral question, but I will add that science helps us understand why it happens, how it happens, helps us catch and prosecute those who do it, and helps rehabilitate the victims afterward.

Quote:

- Should women be allowed to vote.

This is a moral question? That religion somehow applies to?

Quote:

No, Cyclo, Science is not a religion-- which is why it doesn't have any opinions on issues of morality, or of the meaning of life.

Good thing I didn't claim that it did. Science doesn't offer 'opinions' in the way that Religion does. That's why it is infinitely superior to mankind.

Belief in the utility, reliability, and functionality of science is a cultural belief not based on any myth. I have successfully given you an answer to your question, and you are now seeking to engage in a separate discussion, because it's probably frustrating to see your challenge defeated with such ease.

It also highlights once again the extremely poor position you have chosen to champion.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
It could well be that I'm not using the correct language for an American case.

It's just as incorrect in Canada. In common law (which includes Canada) murder requires the intent to kill.

Specific intent to kill is not a necessary element of murder because the mens rea requirement may be satisfied through knowing conduct. The forbidden conduct is engaging in conduct that directly causes or results in the death of another. Conduct includes both acts and omissions (if a person has a duty to act). The mens rea requirement may be satisfied by a knowing act or a knowing omission (if you have a duty to act) that causes or results in the death of another.

Parents have a legal duty to provide their children with necessities. Medical care for a sick child is a necessity. Accordingly, parents have a legal duty to obtain medical care for their children when the need arises. If your child is so deathly ill that you're praying to a god to save her life, then you KNOW that your child requires medical care. A parent is guilty of murder if the parent knowingly omits to obtain medically necessary care for a sick child and that omission causes or results in the death of the child. The motive for that omission (i.e., religious beliefs) is not relevant to the issue of criminal culpability.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I didn't say that Science was a religion; it is superior to any religion. By far.

This is a ironically non-scientific (i.e. non-testable) statement.

Religion and culture operate in two different realms. You are confusing the two.\

The questions that religion best addresses are non-scientific; questions of meaning or morality. Science is incapable of deciding what is good or valuable or moral.

Science, as you say, is very good at answering questions where an answer can be tested and resolved in a repeatable way.

I agree with you-- science can help us answer what a rapist does-- but it can't tell us why rape is wrong. There is a big difference between the two. Science can address the idea of whether a fetus reacts in the womb, or when a fetus is, or when the heart beats-- but it can't answer about whether ending the life of a fetus is morally wrong.

Quote:

Good thing I didn't claim that it did. Science doesn't offer 'opinions' in the way that Religion does.

I agree with you about science-- that it doesn't offer 'opinions'. But, you seem to think that science is sufficient. My point is that there are a whole class of very important questions; from morality, to the value of human life, that science doesn't answer at all.

My opinion is that rape is wrong-- that we should punish people who commit rape and that we should act to stamp it out of society.

Yet, I can not back up this belief with science (and neither can you). Does this make my opinion any less valid?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Let's take your definition of religion-- "embracing an organized superstition".

That is not necessarily my definition of religion, but it works well enough for answering the question of what evolutionary advantage one would derive from religion. However, this is drivel on your part:

Quote:

For this to make any sense we have to define "superstition", I propose that a superstition is a widely held belief with no scientific backing.

A superstition need not relate to science to be defined. A superstition is any belief for which there is no basis other than blind faith. One might believe, for example, that it is safe to drive through an intersection when one has a green light, because one's experience of other drivers confirms that the cross traffic will stop, and because one knows that the law requires them to stop. That's not "scientific backing," but it is a belief which is founded on experience, and it is much more than mere blind faith.

Quote:

Of course religion is a product of evolution.

This is an egregious example of what is known as begging the question. I asked you to explain why this were so, not just to tell me it is so.

Quote:

It is obvious that religion is human nature, Widely held organized superstitions have been at the core of nearly every society throughout history history.

When you qualified this with "nearly every society," you destroyed your own argument. If it were the product of an imperative of natural selection, then it would be every, absolutely every society, not nearly every society.

Quote:

The evolutionary benefits are clear for social creatures such as are own. For our survival, we needed to form societies that were organized under a clear set of principles-- the principle varied from society to society, but every society developed a set of underlying beliefs that were very useful to forming functional societies.

You are inferentially saying that homo sapiens sapiens only arose as a product of societies, and i know of no reason to assume that this is correct. The species h. sapiens sapiens arose about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago, and i defy you to produce evidence that humanity was then organized into societies. Families, surely; clans most likely; but societies? I see no reason to assume that.

Quote:

Religion is as much a product of evolution as any other human trait-- music, art.

You simply introduce more terms and then beg the question implicit in the deployment of those terms by assuming your thesis in advance. I have no reason to agree that this is so. Once again, you have no basis upon which you can assert to me that societies predate music and art.

Quote:

If religion isn't a part of evolution-- where would you say it comes from?

Human cupidity and willfulness. The desire to gain and exercise power. I'm not talking about a shaman or a mystic, i'm talking about organized religion, with priests and creeds. You fail to make your point. You simply beg the question.

Evolution is a process which operates through natural selection to favor the individuals whose characteristics provide them with an enhanced breeding opportunity. It is not "survival of the fittest," because survival is the standard by which "fitness" is judged. Traits which give the individual an advantage in reproduction, and therefore in passing on their particular genetic make up are the ones which are selected in the natural environment, and fuel the engine of evolution.

You have failed miserably to make your case. You have not even addressed the core principle of evolution. You have simply danced around and begged the question repeatedly.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Human cupidity and willfulness. The desire to gain and exercise power.

And (playing along with your argument) why do human beings have the desire to gain and exercise power? And, why do other human beings follow them?

You are arguing that there are some parts of human nature that did not develop through evolution. Where do you think these human traits come from?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Duh-uh . . . from societies, Brown.

Your burden of proof was that organized religion is a product of evolution. Any trait which is a product of evolution must necessarily confer on the individual an enhanced reproductive opportunity, because that is how natural selection works. If your thesis were true, then all humans would subscribe to organized religion, and any who appeared from time to time who did not would lack the trait which would assure their reproductive opportunity.

Do you now intend to tell us that atheists can't have children?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

By the way, Brown, there is no argument for you to "play along with." The burden is on you to demonstrate your thesis. I'm not obliged to disprove it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Any trait which is a product of evolution must necessarily confer on the individual an enhanced reproductive opportunity, because that is how natural selection works.

This is simply scientifically incorrect (I will let Farmerman tackle this one if he chooses).

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

So you don't know how natural selection works, huh, Brown?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

. Any trait which is a product of evolution must necessarily confer on the individual an enhanced reproductive opportunity,

I understand perfectly well how natural selection works. And, this statement of yours is demonstrably wrong (and again, I wish Farmerman would jump in to explain this to you, since I don't think you would be so bullheaded with him).

Many species have developed to work together in groups, where the reproduction in the society at large is favored over the reproduction of individuals. Bees are an obvious example where most of the individuals are infertile (as a process of evolution). Not just humans, but plenty of other animals (i.e. primates and pack animals) have traits that favor the group, rather than individual reproduction.

It is clear to anyone that understands evolution that social animals (i.e. animals who live in societies) do so because of evolution. This includes humans.

I believe that we developed our human traits (including the fact we live in societies) from evolution. My proof of this is that this is the only way known to science that social animals get their traits.

Are you really claiming that humans live in societies for some reason other than the fact we evolved that way?

Do you want to propose what that other way might be?

(Farmerman, where the heck are you???)

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

This is a ironically non-scientific (i.e. non-testable) statement.

Religion and culture operate in two different realms. You are confusing the two.\

No, they do not. Religion was an early attempt to explain life, before the Scientific method took hold. Since the discovery of a testable and repeatable method, Religious influence has steadily waned as it has been supplanted by a superior system.

Quote:

The questions that religion best addresses are non-scientific; questions of meaning or morality. Science is incapable of deciding what is good or valuable or moral.

Bullshit! Religion does not 'address' these issues at all. Instead, it pretends to solve the problems by dictating an answer to them: things are wrong because God Says so, and no other reason. This leads to simplistic and childish views of the world and is the antithesis of actually addressing, understanding, and evaluating an issue.

Quote:

My point is that there are a whole class of very important questions; from morality, to the value of human life, that science doesn't answer at all.

Neither does religion. If religion is good at answering moral problems, why do they still exist after thousands of years of questioning?

Quote:

My opinion is that rape is wrong-- that we should punish people who commit rape and that we should act to stamp it out of society.

Now you are confusing Religion with Ethics. Your religion provides no objective proof that Rape is wrong.

Quote:

Yet, I can not back up this belief with science (and neither can you). Does this make my opinion any less valid?

On the contrary, I can back mine up with science, or at least with Logic; the scientific process can be used to decide the morality of actions by dissecting the problem into its components and addressing those specific components.

In this case,

Does your action bring harm to another? Then it is likely wrong, because we have defined actions that bring harm to another as Wrong in our system.

I don't need some invisible dude to solve my moral problems, and there is no winning track record of Religion solving these problems at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I can back mine up with science...

Does your action bring harm to another? Then it is likely wrong, because we have defined actions that bring harm to another as Wrong in our system.

This is your mistake... most of your assumptions "like the idea that harming others is wrong" are non-scientific.

It is fine that you have eliminated religion as a way of deciding what is right and wrong. It is completely wrong that you can replace it with science-- science has no opinions about what is right or wrong.

- A few years ago a Tsunami killed tens of thousands of people. Was this morally right... or wrong?

- Gorillas (among our closest evolutionary neighbors) live in strictly Patriarchal societies where the females are forced to have sex with the most powerful male. Those that refuse are either ostracized or killed (yes Gorillas kill each other). Is this moral or immoral?

- A couple million years ago, human beings didn't exist, now that they do exist they are transforming the planet in a dramatic way (at the cost of many other species). On the other hand in several billion years the sun will expand killing all life on the planet anyway. Is human existance a good thing, or a bad thing?

Science just is-- it makes no value judgments. Ants live in ordered societies with strict hierarchies, Jellyfish pretty much live on their own (except for mating). Wolves care for there children, Turtles lay their eggs and leave their children on their own (where most of them die in the first day).

According to science, humans are just another animal (a set of chemical reactions developed over a billion years). Science doesn't care if we kill each other, or if we all die (lots of species go extinct with no fanfare).

The value of human life, or the importance of how we treat each other, or what is right or wrong have to come from somewhere other than science.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

I understand perfectly well how natural selection works.

It appears that you do not. And failing to agree with you is not evidence that someone is "bullheaded," if you don't keep the personal remarks out of this, i'll be more than happy to excoriate you to the fullest extent of my abilities.

Quote:

Many species have developed to work together in groups, where the reproduction in the society at large is favored over the reproduction of individuals. Bees are an obvious example where most of the individuals are infertile (as a process of evolution).

If you actually have a detailed knowledge of how a bee colony works, then you'll know that the individual members in the egg are selected to be fertile (i.e., queens). This is an evolutionary trait which could only have arisen if it conferred a reproductive advantage on the first individuals which practiced it. I didn't say that all individuals need enjoy the reproductive advantage, only those who will successfully reproduce and pass on their genetic make-up.

Quote:

Not just humans, but plenty of other animals (i.e. primates and pack animals) have traits that favor the group, rather than individual reproduction.

This is one of the more ridiculous claims you've made, which is quite an accomplishment. In wild dogs, for example, the alpha female will not allow other females to reproduce, or, if another female successfully produces a litter, she will kill off the offspring, and/or drive the female from the pack. Please explain to me the process whereby primates reproduce as a group, Brown. Do you claim that a pair of fertile primates cannot reproduce if they are not members of a group?

Quote:

It is clear to anyone that understands evolution that social animals (i.e. animals who live in societies) do so because of evolution. This includes humans.

The second sentence here is mere ipse dixit. I have already pointed out that you have not demonstrated that human societies predate the emergence of h. sapiens sapiens. Now you are comparing humans to "social animals[/i] such as bees? Nonsense--you have no demonstrated that this is the case. Do you allege that a pair of fertile humans cannot reproduce unless they are the members of a group?

Quote:

I believe that we developed our human traits (including the fact we live in societies) from evolution.

The key word in this silly statement is the first verb. You believe. You have demonstrated the case, so why should i believe as you do? You have not demonstrated either that societies predate the emergence of h. sapiens sapiens. That there were family groups or clans at that point is completely plausible--if you want to call them societies, help yourself. That however does not authorize a claim that organized religion was then present or that it was evolutionarily necessary to successful reproduction.

Quote:

My proof of this is that this is the only way known to science that social animals get their traits.

You have not demonstrated that humans are social animals in the same sense that bees and ants are social animals. Once again, do you claim that two fertile humans cannot successfully reproduce unless they are members of a group?

Quote:

Are you really claiming that humans live in societies for some reason other than the fact we evolved that way?

That would depend upon how you define society. But the question is not whether or not humans are social, and therefor successful, it is whether or not organized religion is essential and foundational to societies, and you are simply begging the question by inferentially assuming that any group defined as a society will ipso facto entail organized religion.

Quote:

Do you want to propose what that other way might be?

Do you want to propose why the existence of a group which you are pleased to call a society would necessarily entail the existence of an organized religion without which it would otherwise fail? Because that is what this discussion is about, Brown. You can play around with definitions, and attempt to lead the discussion away from the core question which started it, but so far, you have miserably failed to demonstrate why the existence of organized religion is an evolutionary trait without which h. sapiens sapiens would not have evolved.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

I can back mine up with science...

Does your action bring harm to another? Then it is likely wrong, because we have defined actions that bring harm to another as Wrong in our system.

This is your mistake... most of your assumptions "like the idea that harming others is wrong" are non-scientific.

It is fine that you have eliminated religion as a way of deciding what is right and wrong. It is completely wrong that you can replace it with science-- science has no opinions about what is right or wrong.

- A few years ago a Tsunami killed tens of thousands of people. Was this morally right... or wrong?

Tsunamis are forces of nature; they exist outside of the right-wrong axis. This is a pretty dumb thing to write. Religion does not address this in any fashion.

Quote:

- Gorillas (among our closest evolutionary neighbors) live in strictly Patriarchal societies where the females are forced to have sex with the most powerful male. Those that refuse are either ostracized or killed (yes Gorillas kill each other). Is this moral or immoral?

Gorillas are creatures of nature; they exist outside of the right-wrong axis. This is a pretty dumb thing to write. Religion does not address this in any fashion.

Quote:

- A couple million years ago, human beings didn't exist, now that they do exist they are transforming the planet in a dramatic way (at the cost of many other species). On the other hand in several billion years the sun will expand killing all life on the planet anyway. Is human existance a good thing, or a bad thing?

It depends on your viewpoint. Human existence is a good thing for humans. It is arguable that we have not improved the stature of anything else outside of our own interests. Your good/bad dichotomy is childishly simplistic.

Quote:

Science just is-- it makes no value judgments. Ants live in ordered societies with strict hierarchies, Jellyfish pretty much live on their own (except for mating). Wolves care for there children, Turtles lay their eggs and leave their children on their own (where most of them die in the first day).

According to science, humans are just another animals. Science doesn't care if we kill each other, or if we all die (lots of species go extinct with no fanfare).

The value of human life, or the importance of how we treat each other, or what is right or wrong have to come from somewhere other than science.

You are correct - it comes from Logic and Ethics. It sure as hell doesn't come from religion.

You really are not advancing your case with these arguments. In fact, I feel perfectly confident in saying that you are bolstering my case: that those who rely upon Religion to answer these questions display very little actual understanding, and turn to simplistic answers in order to avoid addressing their lack of understanding.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Religious Nuts Kill Own Daughter—Is Their Sentence Appropriate?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know