The pointlesness of trying to support religion with science.

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Seth » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:37 am

Thumpalumpacus wrote:
Seth wrote:So, by what reasoning and upon what basis would you then justify imposing your morality and ethics on others?
You'll notice that I didn't say I would "impose" anything. A judgment is a thought, not a deed or fiat. Not sure how you made that leap of logic.
Fair enough. On what reasoning and upon what basis do you presume to judge the morality and ethics of another culture?
Thump wrote:No, you have posed a false dilemma and an inapt analogy. Body modification is not death.
I didn't mention body modification. I compared two killings, both of which are to my mind unjust. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?
Er, presumably you were analogizing to the subject at hand, which was genital mutilation.
Seth wrote:Unless such a supernatural power exists and demands it of you, on pain of far worse if you fail to comply. Or unless you believe that such a supernatural power exists and that far worse will happen to you if you fail to comply. Or unless your culture will reject you and make you an outcast, unable to participate in society or achieve the desires one has for one's life, based on the cultural memes one grows up with.
Yes, were such a being to be demonstrated.
Why must such a being be demonstrated to you? Is it not sufficient that it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the members of the culture that worship it?
In the absence of such a demonstration, I stand by my opinion that toadying behavior is horseshit.
For you, perhaps. But how does your limited personal experience provide moral guidance for everyone else on the planet?
I've been an atheist for 32 years and am not "an outcast, unable to participate in society", thanks.
Women in Africa who are not infibulated, or who do not undergo a clitorectomy often are. How does your limited experience justify your moral position on the culture of others?
Life is a little more complex than such a monochromatic view would suggest.
You mean that monochromatic view you have that your cultural memes and beliefs constitute rational moral judgment of every other culture on the planet? Yes, I would agree in that case.
If you believe, that's fine. I don't care so long as you keep your religion out of our Constitution.


The basis of our Constitution and our form of government is government by, of and for the people, with their consent, and as they see fit to organize it. Therefore, if the people wish to place religion in the Constitution, they have the moral and legal right to do so. Moreover, they have the right, and there is also no practical way to prevent an individual's personal religion from informing their political choices, although our system tries to keep out the more overt manifestations of direct religious doctrine. However, since religion and morality are inseparable in most cases, religion will always, and has always, been a large part of the codification of the morality of our society.
Can you say that body modification is objectively evil, or is it a subjective matter that depends on the particular situation of the person being modified?
Again, this is irrelevant to my post, so I will ignore it.
Again, you evade the subject.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Seth » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:38 am

charlou wrote:
Seth wrote:Can you say that body modification is objectively evil, or is it a subjective matter that depends on the particular situation of the person being modified?
Objectively no more or less evil than imposing a tax on someone to "benefit others", I guess. That's not a dilemma, btw, just an analogy.
I think that would depend upon a thing called "consent," don't you?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32530
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by charlou » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:45 am

Seth wrote:
charlou wrote:
Seth wrote:Can you say that body modification is objectively evil, or is it a subjective matter that depends on the particular situation of the person being modified?
Objectively no more or less evil than imposing a tax on someone to "benefit others", I guess. That's not a dilemma, btw, just an analogy.
I think that would depend upon a thing called "consent," don't you?
Yes. So, not unlike the genital mutilation of children in that regard, objectively speaking.

Is consent necessary, objectively speaking?
no fences

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Seth » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:50 am

charlou wrote:
Seth wrote:
charlou wrote:
Seth wrote:Can you say that body modification is objectively evil, or is it a subjective matter that depends on the particular situation of the person being modified?
Objectively no more or less evil than imposing a tax on someone to "benefit others", I guess. That's not a dilemma, btw, just an analogy.
I think that would depend upon a thing called "consent," don't you?
Yes. So, not unlike the genital mutilation of children in that regard, objectively speaking.
And now we get to the nut of the issue: consent.
Is consent necessary, objectively speaking?
Objectively, might makes right and the Law of the Jungle obtains.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32530
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by charlou » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:57 am

Seth wrote:Objectively, might makes right and the Law of the Jungle obtains.
Is that objective, though?

And are you applying that when you argue in favour or against certain social constructs? Like against income levies, and in favour of GM, ( :demon: advocacy notwithstanding) for example?
no fences

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Posts: 1357
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:13 pm
About me: Texan by birth, musician by nature, writer by avocation, freethinker by inclination.
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Thumpalumpacus » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:08 am

Seth wrote:Fair enough. On what reasoning and upon what basis do you presume to judge the morality and ethics of another culture?
On the basis that I am a thinking human being and I refuse to abdicate my thought process simply because judging is considered unfair or rude or what-have-you. We each judge the morality and ethics of others on a daily basis, and I tired long ago of paying lip service to the "it's not right to judge others" crowd.
Er, presumably you were analogizing to the subject at hand, which was genital mutilation.
Yes, but I was hoping to clarify the point with the analogy, which is that the motivation for genital mutilation is equally unscientific, and almost as fraught with consequence in the case of FGM, as death. The fact that someone wishing to inflict such barbarity on another human wishes to justify his action by an appeal to religion cuts no ice with me. I believe that such cruelty ought to be lambasted where it is found, don't you?
Seth wrote:Why must such a being be demonstrated to you? Is it not sufficient that it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the members of the culture that worship it?
I prefer to think for myself, thanks.
For you, perhaps. But how does your limited personal experience provide moral guidance for everyone else on the planet?
I didn't say that it did. This is a strawman.
Women in Africa who are not infibulated, or who do not undergo a clitorectomy often are. How does your limited experience justify your moral position on the culture of others?
I am not judging the women for their decision. I am castigating the culture as a whole for not considering their feelings to be worthy of concern and consideration. As far as my limited experience goes, I've only lived in Iran, and was stationed in Saudi for four months, so I've never been anywhere where there is FGM, it is true; but having seen the humiliation inflicted on women in those societies, I am confident that my assessment of female genital mutilation as an immoral act is on fairly solid ground. Feel free to point out the positive points of such a practice any time you wish.
You mean that monochromatic view you have that your cultural memes and beliefs constitute rational moral judgment of every other culture on the planet? Yes, I would agree in that case.
No, I mean the monochromatic view that drove you to commit the excluded-middle fallacy in the referenced post.
The basis of our Constitution and our form of government is government by, of and for the people, with their consent, and as they see fit to organize it. Therefore, if the people wish to place religion in the Constitution, they have the moral and legal right to do so.
Provided they gather the appropriate votes. This horseshit of "sneaking Sallie through the alley" regarding religion and government will redound to the deficit of both.
Moreover, they have the right, and there is also no practical way to prevent an individual's personal religion from informing their political choices, although our system tries to keep out the more overt manifestations of direct religious doctrine.
Of course, and no one here is arguing that it ought to be otherwise. Freedom of conscience is the most basic freedom we have.
However, since religion and morality are inseparable in most cases, religion will always, and has always, been a large part of the codification of the morality of our society.
I'm unsure how you go from soft language like "in most cases" to hard absolutes like "will always, and has always", without any intermediary steps.
Again, you evade the subject.
This is body modification:

Image

This is female genital mutilation:

Image

Hopefully this clears up your apparent confusion about these two terms, and explains my confusion and consequent non-answer.

To answer your question, genital mutilation is wrong when it is done without the informed and free consent on the person involved. Given that "informed and free consent" cannot fairly be obtained from infants or toddlers, it follows that hacking away at their genitalia to their obvious pain and distress (see above photo) is immoral insofar as it violates one of the base precepts of my morality, that of the security of ones own body from the application of outside force.

I hope that clears things up.
these are things we think we know
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Seth » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:12 am

charlou wrote:
Seth wrote:Objectively, might makes right and the Law of the Jungle obtains.
Is that objective, though?
I would say so. It's observable fact, how much more objective can it get?
And are you applying that when you argue in favour or against certain social constructs? Like against income levies, and in favour of GM, ( :demon: advocacy notwithstanding) for example?
Civilization is just nature, red in tooth and claw, and the Law of the Jungle sublimated. All social constructs eventually wind their way back to "adapt or die" and "survival of the fittest" to one degree or another. Legal jousts are just less violent substitutes for actual jousts, which are substitutes for lethal combat by agreement, which are substitutes for evolutionary fitness testing.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Posts: 1357
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:13 pm
About me: Texan by birth, musician by nature, writer by avocation, freethinker by inclination.
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Thumpalumpacus » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:16 am

Morality is not necessarily observable.
these are things we think we know
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32530
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by charlou » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:16 am

Seth wrote:
charlou wrote:
Seth wrote:Objectively, might makes right and the Law of the Jungle obtains.
Is that objective, though?
I would say so. It's observable fact, how much more objective can it get?
How does one leap from the observation that might gets its way as might therefore being "right"?
no fences

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Hermit » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:19 am

Rum wrote:If they believe what they believe they should put science to one side surely and simply stand on their faith.
...and a good start would be not to bother installing lightning conductors on their churches, but nobody can accuse theists of being consistent, can they?

On the other hand, I am glad that most theists are inconsistent, especially when they don't go as far as only praying for their children's health, but actually having them immunised and taking them to a doctor when they are sick.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Seth » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:32 am

Thumpalumpacus wrote:
Seth wrote:Fair enough. On what reasoning and upon what basis do you presume to judge the morality and ethics of another culture?
On the basis that I am a thinking human being and I refuse to abdicate my thought process simply because judging is considered unfair or rude or what-have-you. We each judge the morality and ethics of others on a daily basis, and I tired long ago of paying lip service to the "it's not right to judge others" crowd.
This is just situational ethics and apologia, not a reasoned argument.

Er, presumably you were analogizing to the subject at hand, which was genital mutilation.
Yes, but I was hoping to clarify the point with the analogy, which is that the motivation for genital mutilation is equally unscientific, and almost as fraught with consequence in the case of FGM, as death.
But it's not death, necessarily, although death sometimes does occur. What does science have to do with cultural memes? People don't live in science, they live in communities, and those communities have cultural practices, sometimes extending back hundreds or thousands of years, and there are consequences to not abiding by the cultural practices of one's community. It's easy to judge such things while sitting around comfortably behind a computer monitor, but for young women in Africa who hope to find a husband, marry, have children and live a happy life within their culture, both infibulation and clitoectomy are ancient cultural practices that serve cultural needs, and girls who are not provably pure and chaste, which is what infibulation is intended to prove are unlikely to ever be married and will often end up as social outcasts, childless, and often end up as prostitutes who die of AIDS. Culturally, excising the clitoris is intended to reduce the sex drive of women in order to help insure fidelity to their husband and focus them on their cultural duty of having and raising children.

Neither you nor I believe this is a particularly palatable social meme, but who are we to judge what another culture finds of value in it's own context? I certainly don't have enough knowledge of African culture to render judgment on their cultural practices or needs.
The fact that someone wishing to inflict such barbarity on another human wishes to justify his action by an appeal to religion cuts no ice with me.
How would you respond if I told you that in many such cultures such procedures are REQUESTED by the "victim?" How would you respond if I told you that young women VOLUNTEER to be infibulated and have their clitoris' removed in order to be a full and valued member of their community? How is voluntarily submitting to a body modification "barbarity?"
I believe that such cruelty ought to be lambasted where it is found, don't you?
Only after one obtains full knowledge of the totality of the circumstances upon which one can base a rational and well-formed judgment.
Seth wrote:Why must such a being be demonstrated to you? Is it not sufficient that it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the members of the culture that worship it?
I prefer to think for myself, thanks.
I'm sure you do, but we're not talking about you, are we?
For you, perhaps. But how does your limited personal experience provide moral guidance for everyone else on the planet?
I didn't say that it did. This is a strawman.
No, it's a Socratic inquiry.
Women in Africa who are not infibulated, or who do not undergo a clitorectomy often are. How does your limited experience justify your moral position on the culture of others?
I am not judging the women for their decision.
Sure you are.
I am castigating the culture as a whole for not considering their feelings to be worthy of concern and consideration.
How do you know what their culture thinks about it? Have you bothered to inquire of them, or even research the issue, or are you, as I expect, speaking from knee-jerk ignorance and distaste at the notion without giving any consideration to the other side of the argument?
As far as my limited experience goes, I've only lived in Iran, and was stationed in Saudi for four months, so I've never been anywhere where there is FGM, it is true; but having seen the humiliation inflicted on women in those societies, I am confident that my assessment of female genital mutilation as an immoral act is on fairly solid ground. Feel free to point out the positive points of such a practice any time you wish.
Is it a "humiliation" or is it a cultural practice that the women are proud to participate in because it makes them valued members of the culture?
You mean that monochromatic view you have that your cultural memes and beliefs constitute rational moral judgment of every other culture on the planet? Yes, I would agree in that case.
No, I mean the monochromatic view that drove you to commit the excluded-middle fallacy in the referenced post.


Socrates weeps...
The basis of our Constitution and our form of government is government by, of and for the people, with their consent, and as they see fit to organize it. Therefore, if the people wish to place religion in the Constitution, they have the moral and legal right to do so.
Provided they gather the appropriate votes.
A dim glimpse of the blindingly obvious...thanks.
This horseshit of "sneaking Sallie through the alley" regarding religion and government will redound to the deficit of both.
That's why we have checks and balances in place, don't you know...
Moreover, they have the right, and there is also no practical way to prevent an individual's personal religion from informing their political choices, although our system tries to keep out the more overt manifestations of direct religious doctrine.
Of course, and no one here is arguing that it ought to be otherwise. Freedom of conscience is the most basic freedom we have.
Except, it seems, when that conscience drives a majority of the voters to impose some law that you find too closely related to some religious dictate for your comfort. Live by democracy, die by democracy.
However, since religion and morality are inseparable in most cases, religion will always, and has always, been a large part of the codification of the morality of our society.
I'm unsure how you go from soft language like "in most cases" to hard absolutes like "will always, and has always", without any intermediary steps.
Think about it a bit longer, I'm sure it'll come to you...
Again, you evade the subject.
This is body modification:

This is female genital mutilation:


Hopefully this clears up your apparent confusion about these two terms, and explains my confusion and consequent non-answer.[/quote]

Your second image did not come through properly, but it's not really relevant. Both are body modification. "Mutilation" is a subjective term that implies non-consensual body modification. Problem is, in many cases FGM is not "mutilation," it's modification with consent, just like the fellow in your first image.
To answer your question, genital mutilation is wrong when it is done without the informed and free consent on the person involved.
Well, there you go, finally the nickle drops...
Given that "informed and free consent" cannot fairly be obtained from infants or toddlers, it follows that hacking away at their genitalia to their obvious pain and distress (see above photo) is immoral insofar as it violates one of the base precepts of my morality, that of the security of ones own body from the application of outside force.
And in that regard, we agree. See how easy that was?
I hope that clears things up.
Well, almost. Are you now admitting that religious or cultural body modification involving the sexual organs is acceptable and moral so long as the individual involved has given "informed and free consent" to the procedure?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Seth » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:34 am

Seraph wrote:
Rum wrote:If they believe what they believe they should put science to one side surely and simply stand on their faith.
...and a good start would be not to bother installing lightning conductors on their churches, but nobody can accuse theists of being consistent, can they?
Generally, such things are not dictated by religious authority, but by secular authority in the form of building codes. But I note the old Islamic saying: "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel."
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Hermit » Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:13 am

Seth wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Rum wrote:If they believe what they believe they should put science to one side surely and simply stand on their faith.
...and a good start would be not to bother installing lightning conductors on their churches, but nobody can accuse theists of being consistent, can they?
Generally, such things are not dictated by religious authority [snip]
Oh, I see. No true Scotsman... :roll:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
egbert
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:46 pm
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by egbert » Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:42 am

Seth wrote: who are we to judge what another culture finds of value in it's own context? I certainly don't have enough knowledge of African culture to render judgment on their cultural practices or needs.
Exactly! Who the hell did we think we were, judging the German people on their cultural practice of exterminating Jews!
Your logic is SO impeccable!

:share: :tut:
''The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.''
—Rush Limbaugh

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The pointlesness of trying to support religion with scie

Post by Seth » Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:08 pm

egbert wrote:
Seth wrote: who are we to judge what another culture finds of value in it's own context? I certainly don't have enough knowledge of African culture to render judgment on their cultural practices or needs.
Exactly! Who the hell did we think we were, judging the German people on their cultural practice of exterminating Jews!
Your logic is SO impeccable!
There you go forgetting about that "consent" thing again and erecting straw men all over the place.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests