The Cost of Fundamentalism

Terry, your argument is fundamentally flawed. You are presuming a difference between "Human values" and "Religious values". You will need to define this difference, but I don't think this is a valid distinction.

Values are not based on scientific facts. They are all "religious" in the sense that they are based on a belief that you hold in the absense of any way to prove it scientifically, Most values are based on the fact that human life is "sacred". This is impossible to prove scientifically -- factually my knowledge of astrophysics tends to contradict this facts.

What the heck do you mean by the term "scientific ethics"? There is no such thing. Science is only good for determining measurable facts. This doesn't nothing for determining morality or values.

Doctors and Scientists are no more ethical than the average citizen. I am trained as a physicist. I know the science behind a nuclear bomb far better than 99% of Americans. I can describe the subatomic reaction in some detail and can calculate the energy released with confidence. But does this give me ability to make nuclear policy.

The intersection of the science of nuclear bombs with the ethics is easy to express in one sentence.

--- A nuclear bomb can kill a whole lot of people.

Science says nothing about politics or the value of life or the right to self-defense. My physics knowledge makes me no more (or less) ethical or even no more able to discuss the ethics.

The same is true with cloning. The scientists can inform us on the possibilities and the medical risks. Their expertise says absolutely nothing about whether the practice is moral (i.e. is acceptable according to our values).

Religion is a part of being human. If you believe that humans have a special value, this is a "religious" belief as it is not a scientific claim (and can not be proven). You just believe it.

We all have values that are outside the realm of science. Many of these we hold in common. It seems the only distiction you are making is between people who believe in God and those who don't,

0 Replies

Quote:

Rape is never a good thing because it causes pain, injuries, trauma, degradation, and eliminates female selection of the fittest mate. Child marriage is bad because their bodies are not mature enough for the rigors of child-bearing, they are not old enough to make a responsible choice, and their education may be curtailed. Slavery is wrong because all human beings have a right to liberty and self-determination.

These are not at all scientific arguments.

Science (i.e. nature) is not at all worried about pain, trauma and degredation. Rape, or forced sex, is common in many species and has clearly not been eliminated by natural selection even in the human species.

Children are physically ready for sex at 13 or 14 years of age. Nature is also not worried education or "responsible choices".

Your argument against slavery is "all human beings have a right to liberty and self-determination." If that is not a religious statement, I don't know what is. It certainly is not scientific.

These are fine values to hold. But they are not intrinsic in any scientific sense. Like all of us, you are basing your values on fundamental facts that you just accept as true without scientific proof.

That is what religion does.

0 Replies

Brown said

Quote:

Your argument against slavery is "all human beings have a right to liberty and self-determination." If that is not a religious statement, I don't know what is. It certainly is not scientific.

I do not see that as a religious statement. It is neither scientific nor religious. It is merely a concept generated by the society in which we live. What would you call the constitution of the US, a religious document? Do you believe that it is religion that keeps men from running around and acting like wild animals? If anything all evidence is that the opposite is true.
Religion is the opiate of mankind one that we could do better without. When I say religion I am not speaking of the existence of a supreme being. But the myriad of cockamamie religions that exist in the world today along with there well documented myths.

0 Replies

The argument that all humans are equal and have a right to self determination was first articulated by 18th century rationalist who were looking for an alternative to a religious based system of values. This is the framework in which positivism, the idea that the work can be explained by experiential and experimental means free of a value system. operates. Science does not deny the necessity of values. But it does assume that values can not explain the function of the non human world and that world operates independent of any value system. If any religious value system is introduced, it hobbles our ability to understand the world and manipulate it for our advantage and well being. As the currant state of stem cell research in the US demonstrates.

0 Replies

Au,

Is there a difference between these statements?

- "All human beings have a right to liberty and self-determination.
- "Life begins at conception".
- "Cloning is an affront to what it means to be human."

These are all legitimate values held by many members of our society. As you say they are "merely concepts generated by the society in which we live".

So how are you distinguishing between religious and non-religious values?

What if someone says that "All human beings have a right to liberty and self-determination because they were created in the image of God". Do the basic values of liberty and self-determination lose their acceptance because they were expressed or developed based on a creator?

What if an atheist has the value that "life begins at conception and abortion is murder". Does this person gain credibility because she does not believe in something that you consider "cokamamie"?

I don't understand what you are practically suggesting for our society. Religion is undoubtably a core part of our culture and you will not be able to stamp it out. As a democracy you can't even silence the religious or exclude them from government. Is this what you want?

It is logical fallacy to think that your values are any more logical or less subjective simply because you have the sure knowledge there is no supreme being.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

The argument that all humans are equal and have a right to self determination was first articulated by 18th century rationalist who were looking for an alternative to a religious based system of values. This is the framework in which positivism, the idea that the work can be explained by experiential and experimental means free of a value system. operates. Science does not deny the necessity of values. But it does assume that values can not explain the function of the non human world and that world operates independent of any value system. If any religious value system is introduced, it hobbles our ability to understand the world and manipulate it for our advantage and well being. As the currant state of stem cell research in the US demonstrates.

No Aquiunk, I will not let you get away with this.

You all are insisting on making a distinction between "religious" and "non-religious" value systems. I don't think such a distinction is possible. If you insist on this line of argument, you should define the term "religious" or your argument has no logical merit.

Would you accept a slight change to your post...

Quote:

If any value system is introduced, it hobbles our ability to understand the world and manipulate it for our advantage and well being.

Even with this change, I am not sure I agree with it. There are value systems that can "hobbled our ability to understand the world". The 70's feminist movement resisted studies into the physiological differences between male and female. Brain studies show differences, but it is not acceptable to talk about how to manipulate this "for our advantage and well being."

Of course there are examples of this you would call "religious", but I am showing that it any value can be at odds with science.

There are also religious values that I am quite sure do not hobble science at all....

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal: That they are endowed by their creator With certain un-alienable rights And that among these is life, liberty And the pursuit of happiness."

I don't think see this "religious" value as any threat to science.

0 Replies

A religious value system is one that assumes that its values have been sanctioned by the supernatural and are there for not subject to challenge or alternate interpretations. The supernatural has no place in a scientific system of inquiry.

To address your example of values hobbling inquiry. Males and females are self evidentally morphologically distinct. But I know of no evidence that suggests that makes them culturally (learned behavior) distinct. The range of acceptable gender variation for gender behavior is very large. To take the revers, I'm assigning an ethnography on the Gebusi this fall term. A culture found in Papua New Guinea. Adult males in this culture establish long term homosexual liaisons with adolescent males, and that has no effect what so ever on their heterosexual behavior, which is equally exotic by our standards. By the fudamentalist and psychological values and standards being promulgated in this country at the moment, these people should be a moral and mental mess, they are not.
A great deal that is wrong with this country stems from our habit of elevating our values to the level of natural law and then assuming they are universal.

0 Replies

Brown

Quote:

subjective simply because you have the sure knowledge there is no supreme being.

I did not say there is no supreme being and in fact I do believe there is. It is organized religion with all it's meaningless rituals and rules I have no faith in. After all religion with all it's concepts were not IMO passed down by God. If they were everyone would be governed by the same set of rules and laws. Or is it possible that God gave different people different rules to keep us confused. Nah!

0 Replies

Your definition has flaws.

First you are confusing a "scientific system of inquiry" with a value system. Science has nothing to say about any value system.

Secondly, Science can not prove or disprove the existance of God. Therefore a value system that assumes the non-existance of God runs into the same problems as one that assumes her existance. Science does not have anything to say about the existance or non-existance of the "supernatural".

But let's get back to real issues.

Is there a problem If Bush says he is against abortion because "life begins at birth" and therefore "abortion is murder". There is no invocation of any supernatural beings and, as with most values, science has nothing to say about these statements.

There is no reason that an atheist could not hold the same values. Surely the fact that Bush happens to be religious doesn't mean he can't express these non-religious values.

I would also point out that everyone in our society, including you, elevate your values to the level of natural law.

As I pointed out before, it is impossible to show scientifically that rape is wrong. Rape happens in nature and its prohibition is certainly cutural.

I am still willing to hold to my deep belief that rape is wrong. Aren't you?

There are some values that I feel perfectly comfortable evelating to the level of "natural law". Murder, rape, incest, slavery are among them. You will have a hard time arguing for any one of these prohibitions from a scientific point of view.

0 Replies

The laws or rules of "religion" were laid down by people. They would exist because of basic need without the need of a religion to enforce them. The only difference being that those that turned out to be unnecessary and self defeating would easily be discarded, since they were not given by God. What a wonderful world if it were governed by laws that not distorted by religious dogma. Think we would eliminate one of the greatest causes of war, murder, massacre and all the other goodies that come with religion.

0 Replies

Quote:

What a wonderful world if it were governed by laws that not distorted by religious dogma. Think we would eliminate one of the greatest causes of war, murder, massacre and all the other goodies that come with religion.

Au,

That is such a beautiful expression of faith. Your view of a utopian paradise must give you great hope.

0 Replies

Brown
Gee Duh tanks Laughing

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brown
What is morality and who is to determine what is and what is not immoral. I for one do not want to have it determined by the dogma of someone's religion that I may believe is immoral. IMO the presidents stand on stem cell research could be called immoral. IMO the preemptive invasion of Iraq could I suppose be called immoral. The lies of this supposedly religious president are immoral.
I should note that IMO politicians are now using values in place of morality.

Of course, each person decides for himself based on his own moral code, whether that involves his religion or not. But my point is that if someone believes a practice is immoral in the first place, the fact that another country is leading it, even leading it badly, is no reason to wish his own country to begin to do it. For someone who believes the practice is inherently immoral, the solution would have to lie elsewhere.

0 Replies

With respect to the argument which attempts to separate "religion" from "culture", the first ultimately resorts to "divine authority" whereas the second resorts to "tradition". They are thus both "conservative" with respect to new technology, at least the second does not tend to thwart experimentation per se

Ultimately I think the arguments about biotechnology are essentially about aspirations of individuals versus group consensus, with different "rule structures" giving different types of coherence. Cynically the final arbiter is likely to be commerce, and not the nebulous concept of "rights". In that commercial sense alone the word the word "cost" in the title seems to be appropriate.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

With respect to the argument which attempts to separate "religion" from "culture", the first ultimately resorts to "divine authority" whereas the second resorts to "tradition". They are thus both "conservative" with respect to new technology, at least the second does not tend to thwart experimentation per se

Our modern secular culture thwarts all kinds of experimentation. We have all kinds of laws prohibiting all kinds of scientific tests.

The values that stop experiments are the value of human life, the need for subjects to be fully knowledgable about risks etc.

I don't know if you would call these based on some "divine authority", but there are a lot of experiments that are not done because they are unethical. Most of these limits I completely agree with.

I still maintain that it is impossible to distinguish "religious" from "cultural" ethics.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

There is more to being human than science. Our experience and our societies are based on ideals, philosophy, values and morals that can not be based on or informed by science.

Agreed for the most part, except that these things can definitely be informed by science in that science gives us knowledge which we then use to adjust our philosophies and values.

ebrown_p wrote:

Religion is a central part of our culture...

Religion in general (in all its different forms) is a part of our culture, but I would not say that it is a central part.

ebrown_p wrote:

... that has an important role to play in shaping and expressing our values and our indenty as human beings.

I disagree. Religion effects our values and identity only because it has a foothold in people's minds as a source of truth, not because it's inherently necessary in forming values or identity as human beings.

The only thing necessary for forming our identity are the things you listed above: Our ideals, philosophy, values and morals. None of these things are necessarily tied to religion, they are only coincidentally tied to religion.

0 Replies

Re: The Cost of Fundamentalism

Acquiunk wrote:

At one time decisions made in the United States established the standard for scientific and medical research for the rest of the world. But has this country as become mired in a debate mostly initiated by fundamentalist Christians, over the direction and value of scientific research, particularly in biology. The rest of the world has gone it's own way, leaving us to play catch up.

I agree Acq, it's a sad state of affairs. A vocal minority of christian fundamentalists has done substantial damage to the education of our children and to the stature of our nation as a progressive, tolerant and advanced nation.

Many religions in this country, even christians, are worried about the extreme fundamentalist views growing in the US. These views threaten not only scientific progress, but our standing in the international community as well as our ability to deal with ever more technical challenges to our future and the future of our children.

More educators and scientists need to become aware of this assault and become active in defending modern knowledge processes. Pseudoscience, astrology, and extreme religion are often treated as minor nuisances instead of the harbingers of chaos which they are.

0 Replies

It is not only a sad state of affairs, it as consequences for individuals. I have a friend, and there is at least one individual on A2K that could possible benefit from stem cell research. These people are being denied potentially life saving therapies because of the religious beliefs of others.

0 Replies

I think you both are way off-base.

You are making a political and philosophical argument that has absolutely nothing to do with science.

I respect both of you for your other posts, but the premise of your argument is that you are somehow more qualified then people you refer to as "fundamentalist christians" to make moral decisions.

Why are your values any more valid than theirs? Why should you have more of a voice than them to decide what morals our laws should enforce?

Take any one of the moral issues we have mentioned and explain to me how either a lack of belief in God or an advanced knowledge of science adds any moral authority.

Society must make decisions about moral conduct. We have many laws that restrict what you can an cannot do. There are even legal restrictions on how we can do science based on what our society considers moral. Most of the proscriptions you agree with without thinking.

We are in a pluralistic democracy. Each person gets a voice and the political process works to resolve the controversy. You can't silence people based on their religious beliefs as this would go against the core of our society.

You want to enter a holy war against the "fundamentalists", fine! I don't share your apocalyptic vision concerning an "assault" by "harbingers of chaos". I tend to think that the different voices in our society is a good thing.

But don't pretend that science supports you at all in your moral quest. Science has absolutely nothing to say about morality.

0 Replies

IMO the fundamental Christians are no different from the Fundamental Moslems, in that they want everyone to adhere to their beliefs.
My way is the way to salvation if you do not believe it's fire and brimstone for you or some such other nonsense. I have little doubt that if given the opportunity and the power they would turn this nation into a theocracy.

0 Replies

The Cost of Fundamentalism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know