Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[Robin]

Yes, I still don't follow your conclusion.

Simply a matter of parsing the sentence:

"If we reject a, if we continue to b, this doesn't necessarily mean c. It simply reflects d. Or, you might say, e."

So clearly this says that e is a reason to reject a. It would be absurd to suggest he is saying that those who accept a would also accept e.

He wants to have a respectful conversation with people who hold beliefs he finds ridiculous, even about said beliefs. It may be possible for him to respect a person despite ridiculous beliefs, for example because he values her integrity or her knowledge and experience or her generosity. I am pretty sure he would not call her beliefs ridiculous in respectful conversation but would avoid ridiculing her.

So he hides his true opinion about someone's beliefs and calls this respect.

But when someone respects them enough to be honest he calls them polemicists and fundamentalists.

Makes no sense.

Principally yes. But in many groups there are topics that for entirely understandable reasons tend to evoke a defensive stance really fast. I wrapped them up under taboos for simplicities sake, although it is technically not correct, and the one on the JREF-Forum isn't 'Benefits of religion'.

The majority of responses to your post were not even faintly emotional or defensive.

 

[blauregen]

So he hides his true opinion about someone's beliefs and calls this respect.

But when someone respects them enough to be honest he calls them polemicists and fundamentalists.

Makes no sense.

So if a person believes that there is a benevolent deity, It would be more respectful to call this belief ridiculous into the persons face, then to simply state that one doesn't share this belief?

 

[articulett]

I have respectful conversations with people who hold beliefs all the time and every day... I can respect people without respecting their beliefs or opinions. It's when they need me to defer to or respect their woo that I can't comply. If their beliefs are true, what does it matter that I find them silly? if they don't respect my opinion, why in the world should I feel a need to show respect for theirs. If they criticize people whom I find superior to them in all the areas they criticize... then why in the world would they imagine I'd find their criticism useful?

I understand everyone on this thread... particularly Robin and Roboramma... but not Blauregen... and not Fiona... and never Hertzy. They seem to not really be saying anything while inferring that there are these offensive skeptics and atheists or that JREF is a "spoiler of dreams"-- it isn't based on evidence. They "feel" offended... but they don't seem to care that they are offensive to others. Why would you come and join a group to cast judgment upon its members and then imagine your less than welcoming reception was due to something other than what they tell you it is? Shouldn't a skeptic be free from walking on the religious eggshells on a skeptics forum... just like they are free to examine other woo? What if that exalts us? Why would you tear that down, Blauregen? What are you offering in it's place. We are not seeking advice in getting along with believers... most of us can and do every single day of our lives... maybe better than you even. You don't seem particularly gifted or even handed in your communication from my point of view. Why would I want to be more like you. I think you sound like a bigot who doesn't realize he's a bigot. You see offenses supposedly in the words of atheists, me, lots of forum members, and JREF in general that apply more to yourself. You communication is fuzzy and you imagine it clear. You insult others and play the "I'm offended card" or "oh no I said the taboo word" card when it comes back. It's disingenuous. It makes me ask, what is your real goal. It seems like you think you have something to teach and nothing to learn. We get new members who do that all the time and we have old members who do that to. It's offensive to the majority. Why dont' you check how you are coming across before telling others how offensive you find them.

Why should I care that someone finds me offensive when they've just insulted a forum that I find uplifting... I find this forum a great provider of values... but not from the people telling me how rotten this forum is and how taboo it is to mention religion and whatever other stereotype they use to prop up their own notions of diplomat and fair critic of others.

Why hang out at JREF if you think its just a destroyer of dreams? Did it ever occur to you that your stereotyping is a destroyer of dreams... that your judgment and criticism of JREF and it's members is way more offensive than the ones you claim are offensive. You are offering up criticisms of people unasked for and then having a fit when people point out that those criticisms are better aimed at yourself. Check to see if you are being offensive, before claiming a big group of people whom you hardly know is "offensive" and needs your advice. Make sure your a model someone would want to take advice from. We're skeptics. Just because you think your opinion is important... or that we should worry about what others think of us or that you know what our goals should be or that you believe everyone knows what "moral truths" are-- doesn't make us believe it just as don't defer to woo just because someone else finds it sacred or beyond scrutiny.

There are no taboos here. What you are seeing is religion naked from it's cloak of protection which you are trying to force us all not to criticize. You give us no reason to treat your preferred woo differently than other woo... and when we treat it the same-- you imagine all sorts of negative things about our intent.

Rest assured, that the people you find offensive, are probably equally offended by your stereotyping and bias and imagined expertise on communication.

Proof that JREF-- TAM-- and Skepticism-- EXALTS http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3791800#post3791800

Your stereotype has it all wrong, Blauregen...

 

[Herzblut]

I never even remotely suggested that it did honour that person.

Yes, you did. You said that morality based on Kant's imperative leads to the conclusion that raping a comatose woman was a sign of special honouring. I demonstrated the opposite and called your rubbish ignorant idiocy. Because it is ignorant idiocy.

Of course he does. It is wrong, not because he treats her as a means, but because he harms her.

He does wrong although he does not harm her physically. From what I read you are very young, but let me tell you something. Women are not harmed by sex, men neither.

Your next one is classic! My bold and cut:

I have treated him as a subject who is entitled to a right, ..cut.. I have simply decided to thwart this right ..cut..

Excellent. You have understood it now.

Actually most people seem to think that consequences do matter.

Nobody off your fringe seems to think that consequences are all that matters.

 

[Herzblut]

But you are also denying the self-evident fact that child abuse causes a huge amount of suffering, both in the children, their families and the communities at large.

Bold defamations now? You either prove this or apologize. If not, this dispute ends here.

 

[Herzblut]

I understand everyone on this thread... particularly Robin and Roboramma... but not Blauregen... and not Fiona... and never Hertzy.

Excellent. Then what did Robin mean when he said

I have treated him as a subject who is entitled to a right, ..cut.. I have simply decided to thwart this right ..cut..

Fyi, the concrete situation is a cab ride, so this reads:

I have treated the cab driver as a person who is entitled to get money from me. I have simply decided to run away and not give him a penny.

Simple minds like mine have problems to follow this. Would you explain?

 

[Robin]

Yes, you did. You said that morality based on Kant's imperative leads to the conclusion that raping a comatose woman was a sign of special honouring.

Really? Quote me where I said this.

He does wrong although he does not harm her physically. From what I read you are very young, but let me tell you something. Women are not harmed by sex, men neither.

Women and men are always harmed by sex to which they do not consent.

I have treated the cab driver as a person who is entitled to get money from me. I have simply decided to run away and not give him a penny.

Simple minds like mine have problems to follow this. Would you explain?

It is pretty simple. You can decide to ignore somebody's rights while recognising that such a right exists. The concept is normally called "crime"

 

[Fiona]

Do some people seem to reduce everything to the "objective truth" of science in some posts? Yes I think so.

Well I don't know about the cowardice accusation but certainly the nonsense that there is something other than an evidence based Universe is a fabrication to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Does JREF do so as a whole? I think not

Of course this depends if the purpose of religion was to solely provide an explanation of reality. Given the history of the "Christian world" we can see that providing an explanation and predictions was certainly part of what religion did claim to do however that same history also shows that religion's purpose (and I'm using "purpose" to describe its consequences rather than any directed goal) was to provide social structures that resulted in social cohesion.

Claiming that there is no such thing as the "supernatural" and claiming that the term is meaningless are two different things.

Looking at survival rates of premature babies is science, however deciding on the age abortions should be illegal is not.

Is there any reason to think that the OP was apologising for religion? I don't think so. He was specifically talking about "vision" and "uniting purpose". Religion was but one example: in fact he illustrated the point first with a political/philosophical ideology - Ghandi. I can see no reason to suppose the thread was about religion at all.

Did the OP suggest the dichotomy which has been attributed to it? Again I think not. The title was a quote from a poet. The OP immediately identified some problems with the idea and some strong benefits from the opposing position. It then moved on to ask some questions. The premise was that big ideals are crucial in social development: That ideology of various sorts has provided those big ideals. That scientific method cannot do so by definition: That the OP had the impression that scepticism as he perceived it here characteristcally avoided doing so.

He asked whether the people here believed that the "big ideal" was outside the realm of scepticism. He did not assert this: he asked because it was an impression he had gained. That is not an insult

He asked whether scepticism and/or the scientific method could in principle provide a "big ideal" That is not an insult either. It is a very interesting question though

He asked whether humanity can live without such an ideal.

I do not see any dichotomy: I do not see any insult: I do not see any "hidden" premise nor any apology.

The questions were answered. Several people pointed out that there are big ideals in scepticism and in science. For example "pursuit of truth" (Roboramma):"A disease free world" (Ryan O'Dine) "Human growth and efficacy" (dglas and Slingblade). All of these and the others are good answers and they were accepted. It is clear that such ideals are not outside the scope of scepticism (though they are outside the scope of scientific method - a tool to use to move towards those visions: not a vision generator in itself, I think). It is clear that scepticism can generate such ideals. And it is clear that at least some people recognise that we are so constitued that we cannot live without such ideals.

I cannot see the problem here

 

[zosima]

Yes, you did. You said that morality based on Kant's imperative leads to the conclusion that raping a comatose woman was a sign of special honouring. I demonstrated the opposite and called your rubbish ignorant idiocy. Because it is ignorant idiocy.

Speaking of ignorant idiocy, I'm not sure it is so wise to hold Kant's system of ethics in such high esteem. Kant deduced from his ethical axioms that it is a moral imperative that we involuntarily castrate men who have consensual sex with men. He thought castration was our duty and that if we failed to castrate, we would be without justice and equality, that all our lives would become valueless.

Kant believed that consensual sex for pleasure 'dishonored' humanity. He believed masturbation was an 'abuse of the sexual faculty'. Kant probably never even had sex.(as he was never married) There are rumors in some philosophical circles that he had sex once, with a prostitute, contracted syphilis and ultimately died from it. Which is, if nothing else, extremely ironic. This means he was unknowledgable(wrt sex) and/or hypocritical. I can't see any reason why we would want to apply the moral philosophy of someone who had such a skewed view of sexuality to the ethics of a sexual act.

 

[Robin]

So if a person believes that there is a benevolent deity, It would be more respectful to call this belief ridiculous into the persons face, then to simply state that one doesn't share this belief?

If you do, in fact, find their belief ridiculous then it would not be respectful to lie to them and pretend that you don't find it ridiculous. I can't see how you could think that lying to someone is being respectful.

 

[Robin]

Bold defamations now? You either prove this or apologize. If not, this dispute ends here.

Sure, here:

The problem is that anyone halfway intelligent can see the harm involved, or at the very least would be familiar with the basic facts of child development and sexual molestation. There is no reason to "assume" that there is no harm, because there is clear evidence of harm from any amount of case studies.

Wrong.

For an amount of cases there is evidence for no harm:

 

[Herzblut]

Sure, here:

I said not every case of CSA shows evidence of lasting harm:

A 1998 meta-analysis is suggesting that child sexual abuse does not always cause pervasive harm; that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences; and that the extent of psychological damage depends on whether or not the child described the encounter as "consensual."
(Wikipedia)

There is no evidence that every case of CSA does necessarily cause harm (instead, there is strong evidence against this, see above)

What I say is in no way denying that CSA is causing suffering. What I deny is that there is evidence that every single case of CSA is causing suffering, because a substantial amount of cases is lacking such evidence.

Show me such evidence, if you can. Stop deliberately mischaracterizing my posts. Apologize.

Also, nothing that is subject to huge research effort is a "self-evident fact". If something were self-evident fact, it would not require huge research effort. Hence, I refuse to accept your claim of self-evidence. I regard such weasel-wording as a strong indication for holding an ideology lacking evidence or denying counter-evidence.

 

[blauregen]

If you do, in fact, find their belief ridiculous then it would not be respectful to lie to them and pretend that you don't find it ridiculous. I can't see how you could think that lying to someone is being respectful.

I usually differ between lying to someone and not insulting them. Would ommiting to speak your mind to spare someone pain be disrespectful to the person then? Do you think a person would feel more esteemed if you call their beliefs ridiculous or if you simply disagree without giving a value judgement?

But back to the article. The most interresting point for me from the linked page are the different approaches to the public. At least the charismatics in The USA seem to actively sell their product to the target-audience. Of course with a church in every village they have a wonderful infrastructure, and the use of entertainment and even the induction of trance-like states ( The documentary Jesus Camp gives a few good examples of this and albeit the act of indoctrinating children is contemptible, Miss Fischer's presentation during her sermon is executed very well ) makes their product very attractive and likely effective in instilling and maintaining beliefs.

I am wondering what hypothetically would be good ways to spread skepticism. The above seem partly inappropriate.

 

[rocketdodger]

His acting is wrong because it is breaching her human dignity.

And by doing so he either harms 1) her 2) himself or 3) people who know about what is going on or find out about it later. So your claim that no harm comes of it must be false.

He degrades her to a mere means to his sexual satisfaction.

And by doing so he either harms 1) her 2) himself or 3) people who know about what is going on or find out about it later. So your claim that no harm comes of it must be false.

Likewise, sex with a child is morally unacceptable because it is sex without mutual consent. A little kid is not able to reasonably grant or deny consent.

And such a relationship either harms 1) the child 2) the adult or 3) people who know about what is going on or find out about it later. So your claim that no harm comes of it must be false.

Violating the sexual self-dermination of a human being is regarded as severe crime in many countries. It's a criminal act with or without violation of the physical integrity of the victim. The latter is of course a crime as well and adds to the total guilt of the predator.

Because such a relationship either harms 1) the victim 2) the perpetrator or 3) people who know about what is going on or find out about it later. So your claim that no harm comes of it must be false.

It is bizarre I have to explain obvious, self-evident facts.

You only have to explain how you can label these things as morally "wrong" when you think no harm comes of them. And as your post here clearly shows, you can't.

All you have shown is that you think breaching human diginity, degrading others, having unconsentual sex with children, and violating the sexual self-determination of people doesn't cause harm.

Frankly, I find that bizarre, and more than a little disturbing. And this perfectly illustrates the danger with moral absolutism. You (and other absolutists) obviously either don't think morality is linked to harm or else have a very (and frankly scary) definition of 'harm' -- so what happens when a behavior you consider "right" starts to cause harm? What happens when something you consider "wrong" is found to cause no harm at all? What happens when your definition of 'harm' changes? What happens when your definition of 'harm' doesn't agree with others' definitions?

To be honest, people like you terrify me. When they say things like "such and such is wrong because it just is," I can't help but think they would also say "such and such is right because it just is." And when I am pleading with them to stop what they are doing because it is hurting me or someone I care about, that is a very scary thing to hear.

 

[rocketdodger]

I am wondering what hypothetically would be good ways to spread skepticism. The above seem partly inappropriate.

I used to know nothing about anything, and I thought everything was magic.
I was not skeptical of anything.

When I learned to draw and paint, art was no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned geology, oceans and mountains were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned astronomy, the sun and the moon and the stars were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contary.

When I learned chemistry, materials were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned mechanics, machines were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned electricity, electronics were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned programming, computers were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned biology, living organisms were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned artificial intelligence and cognitive science, consciousness was no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned to be skeptical of everything, I was no longer the work of gods.
Now that I know what I am, I am free to become anything I want.

 

[Roboramma]

But she has not consciousness while comatose, hence no will.

How do you figure that? If she may wake up then she is no different from someone who is sleeping, or who's been put under by drugs.

And you, the moral agent, are in love with her and assume that she would also love you if she were conscious.

That's an unjustified and false assumption - why should I make it?
If your criticism requires that 'moral agents' make false assumptions in order to be lead to a poor moral position, I don't see any strength in your criticism.

But in general, you should not define a consequence, you should observe it. Otherwise, you may act however you like, by conveniently defining away any harm.

Please explain.

I unpack my Kant from #112:

Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end.

I must not, never, treat her as a means to satisfy my libido. Simple and clear. End of discussion.

So, for instance, I shouldn't call a plumber when a pipe bursts, because I'd be treating him as a means to an end?

 

[Herzblut]

And by doing so he either harms 1) her 2) himself or 3) people who know about what is going on or find out about it later.

Evidence?

So your claim that no harm comes of it must be false.

I made no such claim. Can you rationally argue why I should be making bold claims about a predicate like 'harm' which is irrelevant in my ethical system?

And by doing so he either harms 1) her 2) himself or 3) people who know about what is going on or find out about it later. So your claim that no harm comes of it must be false.

Amen.

You only have to explain how you can label these things as morally "wrong" when you think no harm comes of them. And as your post here clearly shows, you can't.

I explained, but you didn't understand.

Frankly, I find that bizarre, and more than a little disturbing. And this perfectly illustrates the danger with moral absolutism. You (and other absolutists) obviously either don't think morality is linked to harm or else have a very (and frankly scary) definition of 'harm' -- so what happens when a behavior you consider "right" starts to cause harm? What happens when something you consider "wrong" is found to cause no harm at all? What happens when your definition of 'harm' changes? What happens when your definition of 'harm' doesn't agree with others' definitions?

How bizarre. You have to address those questions to yourself, because they only occur in your own ethical system. They are irrelevant in mine.

Do you understand this?

To be honest, people like you terrify me. When they say things like "such and such is wrong because it just is," I can't help but think they would also say "such and such is right because it just is." And when I am pleading with them to stop what they are doing because it is hurting me or someone I care about, that is a very scary thing to hear.

Everything will be good.

 

[Herzblut]

How do you figure that? If she may wake up then she is no different from someone who is sleeping, or who's been put under by drugs.

If your moral agent has no clue what is, how shall he find out what will be (the consequences)? Remember, not mine but your ethics is based just (!) on consequences.

That's an unjustified and false assumption - why should I make it?

Because love is blind.

So, for instance, I shouldn't call a plumber when a pipe bursts, because I'd be treating him as a means to an end?

You heard of Kant? Fine. How can you rationally argue that he was so immensely naive? Can you make this plausible at all?

But I admit I left out an important word:

Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never merely as a means to an end.

 

[slingblade]

I used to know nothing about anything, and I thought everything was magic.
I was not skeptical of anything.

When I learned to draw and paint, art was no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned geology, oceans and mountains were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned astronomy, the sun and the moon and the stars were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contary.

When I learned chemistry, materials were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned mechanics, machines were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned electricity, electronics were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned programming, computers were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned biology, living organisms were no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned artificial intelligence and cognitive science, consciousness was no longer the work of gods.
I learned to be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

When I learned to be skeptical of everything, I was no longer the work of gods.
Now that I know what I am, I am free to become anything I want.

Nominated.

 

[Herzblut]

When I learned to be skeptical of everything, I was no longer the work of gods.
Now that I know what I am, I am free to become anything I want.

How could you be skeptical of everything while knowing what you are at the same time?

And how can you be free to become anything while you have to follow your own moral codex at the same time?

How can you rationally argue away the obvious self-contradictions?