The pointlesness of trying to support religion with science.

[Seth]

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...

Er, how so? Even churches are required to comply with civil building codes.

[Rob]

Really, it's two different epistemologies. This is why they can never be compatible. For my own money, I think that Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" idea is simply a half-hearted compromise, too.

While I cannot say there is no god, I certainly need not permit him a setting at the dinner-table.

NOMA ... I quite liked the way Dawkins dealt with that in teh god delusion ...


As for no god ... it depends on ones definition ... Mine is that while a god is considered to be a supernatural entity, ie exist outside nature, on that basis I say there is no god.

You see, I disagree. Science cannot be used to prove something. Science disproves things, finds supporting evidence but it isn't in the business of having an absolute truth. Thus science cannot be used to prove god's existence. Reversing this, science also cannot disprove god. Science is the study of the natural world. If such a supernatural being were to exist, the existence, by its very definition, is beyond the scope of science. It's like trying to find scientific evidence for a miracle. Miracles are simply the impossible becoming possible. How could you attempt to find evidence for such things?

No matter how I turn it, I don't see the possibility of science saying anything about the supernatural. We may tell people, realistically speaking the supernatural is impossible in the framework we understand as Homo sapiens sapiens. Well no shit. They still have faith though.

[Seth]

Really, it's two different epistemologies. This is why they can never be compatible. For my own money, I think that Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" idea is simply a half-hearted compromise, too.

While I cannot say there is no god, I certainly need not permit him a setting at the dinner-table.

NOMA ... I quite liked the way Dawkins dealt with that in teh god delusion ...


As for no god ... it depends on ones definition ... Mine is that while a god is considered to be a supernatural entity, ie exist outside nature, on that basis I say there is no god.

You see, I disagree. Science cannot be used to prove something. Science disproves things, finds supporting evidence but it isn't in the business of having an absolute truth. Thus science cannot be used to prove god's existence. Reversing this, science also cannot disprove god. Science is the study of the natural world. If such a supernatural being were to exist, the existence, by its very definition, is beyond the scope of science. It's like trying to find scientific evidence for a miracle. Miracles are simply the impossible becoming possible. How could you attempt to find evidence for such things?

No matter how I turn it, I don't see the possibility of science saying anything about the supernatural. We may tell people, realistically speaking the supernatural is impossible in the framework we understand as Homo sapiens sapiens. Well no shit. They still have faith though.

Nor is a god necessarily required to be "supernatural," which is mostly a code-word for "I don't understand it..."

[Rob]

Can you point me towards the nearest natural god then?

[Seth]

Can you point me towards the nearest natural god then?

No, I can only point out the logical flaw in your reasoning, which I call the "Atheist's Fallacy."

The Atheist's Fallacy takes the general form "God cannot exist because God is a supernatural being, and nothing supernatural can, by definition, exist, because there is only nature."

The fallacy, the logical failure, is that such arguments depend upon accepting the unsupported premise that God must be a supernatural being because that is what theists claim.

P1 Theists claim that God is a supernatural being
P2 Supernatural beings do not exist
C1 Therefore, God does not exist

The flaw in this reasoning should be obvious. What if theists are wrong about God being a supernatural being? What if their understanding of God is flawed and incorrect? What if God is not supernatural, but merely of such advanced nature and technology that we humans cannot understand he/she/it?

Arthur C. Clarke, the noted science fiction author said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To recast slightly, "Any sufficiently advanced technology or intelligent entity is indistinguishable from deity."

Therefore, I challenge you to present your critically robust scientific evidence that God is in fact supernatural. And you don't get to reiterate the Atheist's Fallacy by saying "Well, that's what theists say..."

[Gallstones]

b) Sexual Mutilation of Children, both sexes (under 18) - a crime

Already a crime.

Oh, oh. This topic alone has become one of the longest running discussions ever.

Well, for it to be "sexual mutilation" it would require that the intent of the mutilator be sexual, not religious, cultural or medical.

Not.

Mutilation is mutilation regardless of how one justifies the doing of it. Religion is the most common motivation for genital mutilation--how about that, I change the terminology to genital from sexual?

So no.

Well, yes, actually. Terminology is important, you see. If it's a religious motivation, it's not "sexual mutilation," and yes, changing the term to "genital mutilation" would lend an entirely different meaning, but that's not what was posted.

It's what I posted.
And I coupled it with the statement that religion is the most common motivator for genital mutilation.

Do you think that excision of the labia and clitoris and the suturing closed of the vaginal opening ever occurs as a non sexual mutilation?
Is there ever a non-religious motivation for doing it?

Evading the subject?


What is your position with regards to a culture that would excise the glands of the penis as a rite of passage?
Also, should an individual be bound to undergoing theses rites of passage if they choose not to?
Should rites of passage be forced upon compelled of children when they are still dependent on their parents for their survival?

What of communal cultures where no one is allowed to own anything and all belongs to the group at large and one's rite of passage is to give over every meager thing s/he accumulates and all one's talents to benefit the group.

[Seth]

Evading the subject?


What is your position with regards to a culture that would excise the glands of the penis as a rite of passage?
Also, should an individual be bound to undergoing theses rites of passage if they choose not to?
Should rites of passage be forced upon compelled of children when they are still dependent on their parents for their survival?

What of communal cultures where no one is allowed to own anything and all belongs to the group at large and one's rite of passage is to give over every meager thing s/he accumulates and all one's talents to benefit the group.

Do you mean the "glans?" I don't know of any culture that excises the glans. Circumcision is the excising of the penile sheath or foreskin, which is the flesh that covers the glans when the penis is not erect.

I've already said that consent is a necessary component of any moral form of body modification other than what might be medically required or prudent.

Circumcision in the US, as a medical procedure, is still commonly practiced on the belief that it improves hygiene and reduces the risk for penile cancer and STD's. Since circumcision is best performed shortly after birth, when the pain and trauma associated are quickly forgotten, and since parents need to make informed decisions regarding the procedure on behalf of their children, there may be legitimate medical reasons to circumcise children. This may also apply to cultural memes where the child may be ostracized as an adult. I would prefer, of course, that any such procedure await informed consent, but there are legitimate reasons to perform circumcisions on males while they are infants.

Unlike female "circumcision" the purpose of removing the foreskin is not intended to inhibit future sexual pleasure, but rather the reasons are cultural, religious, or medical. Female circumcision, however, is performed SOLELY for the purpose of inhibiting female sexual pleasure, as part of a cultural bias against female sexuality intended to facilitate and support patriarchal memes and insure female fidelity in marriage by removing the sexual pleasure aspect of intercourse, thereby limiting the function of sexual activity only to procreation. I do not see that as a moral objective when applied to someone without informed adult consent.

What has been the medical view of circumcision?

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised. This number, of course, varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.

[Gallstones]

What if this was a rite of passage?

WARNING: Not for the faint of heart

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Is it a greater or lessor mutilation than female circumcision?

[Gallstones]

Evading the subject?


What is your position with regards to a culture that would excise the glands of the penis as a rite of passage?
Also, should an individual be bound to undergoing theses rites of passage if they choose not to?
Should rites of passage be forced upon compelled of children when they are still dependent on their parents for their survival?

What of communal cultures where no one is allowed to own anything and all belongs to the group at large and one's rite of passage is to give over every meager thing s/he accumulates and all one's talents to benefit the group.

Do you mean the "glans?"

Yes. Misspelling.

[Rob]

The Atheist's Fallacy takes the general form "God cannot exist because God is a supernatural being, and nothing supernatural can, by definition, exist, because there is only nature."

Bullshit. Don't attribute claims to me which I didn't make. I never have claimed the above.

[Seth]

The Atheist's Fallacy takes the general form "God cannot exist because God is a supernatural being, and nothing supernatural can, by definition, exist, because there is only nature."

Bullshit. Don't attribute claims to me which I didn't make. I never have claimed the above.

Did I attribute it to you? I don't think so...

Charlou said, "Mine is that while a god is considered to be a supernatural entity, ie exist outside nature, on that basis I say there is no god." This is a classic explication of the Atheist's Fallacy.

You said, "Can you point me towards the nearest natural god then?"

The rational inference I draw from this statement is that you take as a given the notion that gods are not natural. This is a common belief among atheists, so it's hardly inappropriate to so infer.

You also said, "Science is the study of the natural world. If such a supernatural being were to exist, the existence, by its very definition, is beyond the scope of science. It's like trying to find scientific evidence for a miracle. Miracles are simply the impossible becoming possible. How could you attempt to find evidence for such things?"

This strengthens the rational inference that you hold the opinion that God must be supernatural. Since the general explication of God prevalent today from theists is that God is transcendent and supernatural, it's hardly irrational to point out that a presumption that God is "beyond the scope of science" demonstrates a bias towards the theistic description of God, which is the essence of the Atheist's Fallacy.

Because God may be perfectly "natural" and fully within the scope of science, albeit not OUR science at OUR primitive level of understanding of nature, trying to dismiss God because God is "supernatural" and therefore unscientific and not within the scope of scientific inquiry is a logical failure of the first water.

[Gallstones]

Karaoke contest at Carmel's Friday. I'm going.
$1K prize.
Who wants to come with?



I have heard that Methodists can only have sex on the 15th and the 30th of the month provided they don't fall on a Sunday.

In my anecdotal opinion, there is no fucking god--or none worth giving a shit about let alone worshiping. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

You pose a false dichotomy. Situation ethics is often reasoned. As far as "apologia" if you don't like it, take it apart, don't slur it.

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.

Now comes the big question: do you consider that to be a satisfactory moral justification?

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.

I am human enough to know that no social need justifies hacking up my cock. I can therefore presume that were I female I would find this genital mutilation extremely objectionable. Indeed, the fact that it is performed on young girls, and not adults, is a clue indicating that the perpetrators themselves know that what they are doing is wrong: they do it only to the powerless.

And you defend it.

How would you respond if I told you that in many such cultures such procedures are REQUESTED by the "victim?"

I would ask you how you know this in your limited experience? After all, that is only what you asked me. Have you witnessed this alleged request? No? I didn't think so.

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?"

When you present evidence that 1) toddlers request such mutilation and 2) that they do so in full knowledge of the ramifications -- then I'll bother with this sad attempt at nettling. Until then, your allegations that FGM is desired sounds like, um, an American male talking out of his ass.

Only after one obtains full knowledge of the totality of the circumstances upon which one can base a rational and well-formed judgment.

Then I expect to not read you complaining about anythng ever, because you must meet this unobtainable standard as well.

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?

You asked me why it must be demonstrated to me. You asked me, and I answered. So yes, we are talking about me, at your instigation.

tl/dr: quit trolling.

No, it's a Socratic inquiry.

You, "Socratic"? No. You're attemptng to paste a position on me that I haven't avowed. That is the fallacy of "strawmanning." By this bullshit reply, you are indicating that you are not discussing in good faith. You will lose my attention quickly if you continue this sort of thing.

You can reasonably assume that what I wrote is what I mean. If you think there are further implications and wish to explore them, you are welcome to ask about them. But when you go charging about stuffing words into my mouth, your true message, whether or not you're wise enough to see it, is "I'm here to make myself feel better."

If you wish true communication, it is yours to have. But you must quit this bullshit dialecticism. I have seen the disdain others shower upon you, and have made a conscious effort to give you a chance at showing me that you are ingenuous.

Sure you are.

Cut and paste my criticism, please.

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?

I have an opinion, it has some information behind it, and if you cannot get that then you're welcome to put me on ignore. You have no knowledge of me, you make presumptions about me in this very post where you accuse me of presumptuousness.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to pose the positive side of female genital mutilation. Really.

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?

It's certainly humiliation. If a woman has a bare ankle showing in Riyadh, for example, the muttawa, or religious policeman seeing that will smack her shins with a cane. If she doesn't lower her burqa to cover her "offending" flesh, she gets taken to jail. I have personally seen this happen, because I've lived in Riyadh.

Have you?

I didn't think so.

Socrates weeps...

I bet you feel smart.

A dim glimpse of the blindingly obvious...thanks.

I take it then that you do not value agreement, and the reaching out across differences? Because really, if you're going to be a dickweed, I can give as good.

This comment gives me the impression that you don't post to actually exchange ideas. I am doing my level best to be decent to you, but really, I don't log in to argue. If you do, have at it, with someone else.

That's why we have checks and balances in place, don't you know...

A dim glimpse of the blindingly obvious...thanks.

Physician, heal thyself.

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.

No one here is arguing for or against any law at all. Please, stay on-point.

Think about it a bit longer, I'm sure it'll come to you...

No. You posit it. Back it up. If you can.

Your second image did not come through properly,

Then here, try this one:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

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.

Nonsense. 1) children cannot give informed consent. 2) Getting a tattoo has no long term impact on quality of life. Getting your clit sliced off does, one may assume, affect the sex-life of the woman.

Well, there you go, finally the nickle drops...

Wow, that's your best answer?

No, really?

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?

The pity of it is, I've agreed with much of what you've posted and have said as much, but you've gotten caught in the ego-trap of "I'm right/he's wrong" such that you have closed yourself off to potential sources of information.

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?

Sure, with the following caveats: 1) the subject assumes all responsibility for health-care costs normally associated with such procedures; and 2) the inflicting agency assumes all liability for botched procedures, including lawsuits resulting from the loss of adult sexual pleasure years or decades after the fact.

I must confess surprise at this discussion. I personally feel that if you're going to plump for genital mutilation, you should either set the example yourself, or drop the issue.

Put your money where your mouth is, y'know?

So to speak, of course. I don't really think you have your dick in your mouth.

[charlou]

Can you point me towards the nearest natural god then?

No, I can only point out the logical flaw in your reasoning, which I call the "Atheist's Fallacy."

The Atheist's Fallacy takes the general form "God cannot exist because God is a supernatural being, and nothing supernatural can, by definition, exist, because there is only nature."

The fallacy, the logical failure, is that such arguments depend upon accepting the unsupported premise that God must be a supernatural being because that is what theists claim.

P1 Theists claim that God is a supernatural being
P2 Supernatural beings do not exist
C1 Therefore, God does not exist

The flaw in this reasoning should be obvious. What if theists are wrong about God being a supernatural being? What if their understanding of God is flawed and incorrect? What if God is not supernatural, but merely of such advanced nature and technology that we humans cannot understand he/she/it?

Then it's a natural thing and not a god, by my definition of "a god". Your definition of "god" may be different, in which case the basis of your arguing my viewpoint doesn't have any foundation that I can see.

Why do you capitalise the word "god"?

Therefore, I challenge you to present your critically robust scientific evidence that God is in fact supernatural. And you don't get to reiterate the Atheist's Fallacy by saying "Well, that's what theists say..."

Who are you challenging here? I've just told you in other words that I believe everything that exists is natural. I'll add that includes aspects of nature we are or may yet be unaware of.

Arthur C. Clarke, the noted science fiction author said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To recast slightly, "Any sufficiently advanced technology or intelligent entity is indistinguishable from deity."

Like cargo cults ...

"indistiguishable" is a perception based comparison and therefore testable and possibly falsifiable.

It doesn't matter how I may perceive and react to some strange, awesome, frightening, unusual, intriguing etc new phenomenon, intellectually I have come to the point of thinking that all things are natural. I don't hold a superstitious view about things yet unexplained*, like the "first cause" whatever that may have been, and I don't equate "weird" or "unexplained" with "therefore god".

*unexplained, either in my own mind, or by science to date

[charlou]

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"?

Still interested in how you get from "the Law of the Jungle obtains" to "might makes right". The first is an objective observation, the second is a subjective value judgement.