"The only thing we can and should trust is the sciences" (John Loftus, The Christian Delusion, 89)
Unfortunately, this claim isn't a deliverance of any natural science. Science can't tell us something like this.
Furthermore, since the claim includes a normative prescription (i.e., "should"), science is impotent to tell us this.
Therefore, we shouldn't trust this claim.
Besides this, there are many things science cannot give us the answers to. I already mentioned normative truths (either ethical or rational), but there's also the reliability of my senses, the laws of logic, the existence of an external world, the existence of other minds, and a justification of the scientific enterprise itself. None of these things are given to us by science; indeed, most of them are presupposed by science.
I really can't fathom why some of the names that blurbed this book on the back cover did so. Michael Martin called it "arguably the best critique of the Christian faith the world has ever known." But of course, among its many other problems, Loftus' claim I quoted above rules out many of the chapters in the book as not worthy of our trust. Indeed, I've just been cherry picking stuff, a real critique would reveal hundreds of other errors of a similar nature, or worse.
Showing posts with label Atheology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheology. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Moral Virtues of Suicide
Over at Trekbbs.com, a poster asked:
A followup comment quoted the highlighted portion above and said
But isn't that exactly where secular ethics leads? After all, if ethics logically conduces to the self-interest of the individual, then it's his life to take. The effect on others is immaterial. So what? Moral outrage, sadness, and all of that sentiment is really just illusory.
One of our resident nullifidians Sidious016 replied:
And another poster replied to Rii
Agreed, but I thought that was a good place to make a wider point, namely, in light of Steve's recent post on secular ethics and antinatalism, namely (in summary) it is better not to live than live at all, given a secular worldview, so where is the moral outrage? What Rii said is a good, if brief, illustration of the logical end of a secualist worldview.
Indeed, Rii, went on to say: The concept that suicide is selfish. That someone in so much distress that they can't see a reason to continue living should refrain from suicide because their death might upset friends and family is the pinnacle of hubris.
But what goes right over the heads of the secularists there is this: So what? If we're all just blobs of protoplasm with ideas above it's station, then so what?
Well, Camelopard and Sidious now think that's libelous and crass...so, here's their chance to prove otherwise by actually arguing that their comments to me and their sentimentalism about suicide is consistent with a secularist worldview. I've invited them over here, let's see if they can man-up and provide reasons consistent with nullifidianism for their sentimentality. Here's the problem: Secular / atheological ethics logically conduces to moral nihilism, illusionism, and / or relativism. So, their moral outrage is rather misplaced. They are very judgmental relativists, and libelousness is just an illusion, as are anybody's feelings about the "tragedy" of suicide. Indeed, if John Smith decides it is in his own evolved self-interest to take his own life, they have no reason consistent with secularist/atheological ethics to get all worked up about it, and they certainly have no basis for criticizing Christian ethics in particular. So, heres your big chance to shine, boys...you guys and any of your other secularist buddies from the Board vs. Little old me, Steve, Manata, etc. here. All you have to do is play by our rules of behavior and you need to argue, not assert your position. This isn't TNZ.
A few posters on here have expressed dissatisfaction with their lives to the point of considering suicide. It is certainly something I have grappled with for many years. The most common objection you hear to suicide is the impact it will have on those you leave behind. I have a girlfriend of 10 years. There are times I think she would be better off without me and she should find a man who is more successful at life. She has in fact told me that if I were to commit suicide she doesn't think she would ever get over it. She said if I died of natural causes or an accident she could mourn and eventually move on, but suicide is something completely different.
Has anyone ever had someone close to them commit suicide or know someone who had a loved one commit suicide? Is the impact of someone killing themselves very different from someone who dies naturally? I know this sounds like a very obvious question, but I am just interested in hearing real stories of the impact it has on the survivors.
A followup comment quoted the highlighted portion above and said
Which is, of course, bullshit.
But isn't that exactly where secular ethics leads? After all, if ethics logically conduces to the self-interest of the individual, then it's his life to take. The effect on others is immaterial. So what? Moral outrage, sadness, and all of that sentiment is really just illusory.
One of our resident nullifidians Sidious016 replied:
What?!
And another poster replied to Rii
: I'm sorry, but, as you may understand, this is a very sensitive subject for many people, and you probably shouldn't be so caviler about how other people may feel.
Agreed, but I thought that was a good place to make a wider point, namely, in light of Steve's recent post on secular ethics and antinatalism, namely (in summary) it is better not to live than live at all, given a secular worldview, so where is the moral outrage? What Rii said is a good, if brief, illustration of the logical end of a secualist worldview.
Indeed, Rii, went on to say: The concept that suicide is selfish. That someone in so much distress that they can't see a reason to continue living should refrain from suicide because their death might upset friends and family is the pinnacle of hubris.
But what goes right over the heads of the secularists there is this: So what? If we're all just blobs of protoplasm with ideas above it's station, then so what?
Well, Camelopard and Sidious now think that's libelous and crass...so, here's their chance to prove otherwise by actually arguing that their comments to me and their sentimentalism about suicide is consistent with a secularist worldview. I've invited them over here, let's see if they can man-up and provide reasons consistent with nullifidianism for their sentimentality. Here's the problem: Secular / atheological ethics logically conduces to moral nihilism, illusionism, and / or relativism. So, their moral outrage is rather misplaced. They are very judgmental relativists, and libelousness is just an illusion, as are anybody's feelings about the "tragedy" of suicide. Indeed, if John Smith decides it is in his own evolved self-interest to take his own life, they have no reason consistent with secularist/atheological ethics to get all worked up about it, and they certainly have no basis for criticizing Christian ethics in particular. So, heres your big chance to shine, boys...you guys and any of your other secularist buddies from the Board vs. Little old me, Steve, Manata, etc. here. All you have to do is play by our rules of behavior and you need to argue, not assert your position. This isn't TNZ.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Foot-in-Mouth Disease
Jason Streitfeld says he's a proud atheist.
But that's meaningless.
He says the term 'God' is meaningless.
He says that even to say that 'No knowledge presupposes God' is to say something meaningless, so he denies it.
But, 'atheism' states that God does not exist, or that one lacks a belief in God.
Both those claims, according to Streitfeld, are meaningless. Hence, atheism is meaningless. He must reject the claim that he is an atheist.
Also, if he rejects the claim that 'No knowledge presupposes God' because 'God' is a meaningless term, then he must also reject the claim that 'God is a meaningless term.' Atheist Theodore Drange states, "[theological] noncognitivism declares atheism to be flat-out meaningless."
But a key premise of one of his "devastating" arguments against theism was this:
[The Devastator] "Atheism may here be defined as any explicit or implicit denial of the existence of God. Thus, if one presupposes the existence of God in an argument, one begs the question against atheism."
But he must deny these statements! All statements that say 'God' in any way (atheism or theism) are meaningless.
In fact, if Streitfeld is right, he should never have written his post. He should stop blogging. He can never mention the word 'God' again otherwise that means he will have to "reject that claim," because he told me that he "reject all claims that have the word God in them."
But that's meaningless.
He says the term 'God' is meaningless.
He says that even to say that 'No knowledge presupposes God' is to say something meaningless, so he denies it.
But, 'atheism' states that God does not exist, or that one lacks a belief in God.
Both those claims, according to Streitfeld, are meaningless. Hence, atheism is meaningless. He must reject the claim that he is an atheist.
Also, if he rejects the claim that 'No knowledge presupposes God' because 'God' is a meaningless term, then he must also reject the claim that 'God is a meaningless term.' Atheist Theodore Drange states, "[theological] noncognitivism declares atheism to be flat-out meaningless."
But a key premise of one of his "devastating" arguments against theism was this:
[The Devastator] "Atheism may here be defined as any explicit or implicit denial of the existence of God. Thus, if one presupposes the existence of God in an argument, one begs the question against atheism."
But he must deny these statements! All statements that say 'God' in any way (atheism or theism) are meaningless.
In fact, if Streitfeld is right, he should never have written his post. He should stop blogging. He can never mention the word 'God' again otherwise that means he will have to "reject that claim," because he told me that he "reject all claims that have the word God in them."
Friday, June 13, 2008
Lying for Mammy Nature
Dawkins called those associated with "Expelled," liars for Jesus. So I'll assume he thinks my terminology fair.
"I shall simply say that those who regard [Saddam Hussein's] regime as a 'secular' one are deluding themselves" -- Christopher Hitchens, "god is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything", p. 25)
Let's see what the "About Atheism/Agnosticism" web site claims (do I need to point out that I'm invoking a source not sympathetic with my own view of the world?):
********************************
Name:
Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti
Important Dates:
Born: April 28, 1937, in al-Awja, Tikrit, Iraq
Executed: December 30, 2006
Joined the Baath Party: 1956
Married his cousin, Sajida: 1958
Attempted Assassination of Iraqi Prime Minister: 1959
Aided in Baath Party Coup of Iraq: 1968
Seized Power in Iraq: 1979
Invaded Iran: 1980
Married Second Wife, his daughter's teacher Samira Shahbandar: 1984
Invaded Kuwait: 1990
Captured by U.S. forces: December 13, 2003
Titles:
Great Uncle
Glorious Leader
Field Marshall
President
Biography:
Born in a mud-brick house to a family of sheep-herders, Saddam Hussein rose to become one of the world's most brutal dictators of the latter-half of the 20th century. Key to this was his participation in the secular and nationalist Iraqi Baath party. Originally this party was united with a Syrian Baath party, but the two eventually split due to doctrinal differences. The Arabic word ba'th means "resurrection" or "renaissance" and is used here as a reference to the ideal of a renaissance of Arab power in the world — a curious stance, given that the power they were striving for was secular while the historical power was constituted at least largely on the basis of religion. This secular/religious contradiction in Baathist ideology would play a role in Saddam Hussein's own rule.
Socialist and secular in nature, the Iraqi Baath party has a great deal in common with European fascist movements, both religious and secular, with its reliance on developing extremist national consciousness as a means of uniting the people against enemies, both internal and external. Islamist movements in the Arab world have much the same goal, though they base their political philosophy on Islamic religious ideology rather than secular socialism. The fact that both secular and religious ideologies can achieve popularity with the same goals despite being opposed to each other indicates that they are both are tapping into something important.
Saddam Hussein received law degrees from the University of Cairo and the University of Baghdad, with the latter occurring after a non-violent Baathist coup in Iraq. At this time Hussein served in various positions within the party and the government, but in 1979 when President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr announced his retirement, Hussein managed to assume the positions of Chairman and President, consolidating a great deal of power in his hands alone.
Saddam Hussein: Secular or Religious Ruler?
Saddam Hussein's popularity in the Muslim and Arab world varied greatly, depending upon whom one asked and what the political situation at the time was. Because of his repression of the religious Shi'ite minority in Iraq and his long war with Shi'ite Iran, it was difficult for Shi'ite Muslims to find anything good to say about Hussein. In addition, because of his staunch secularism and his secularization of Iraq, it was been difficult for devout and conservative Muslims of any type to think well of him.
On the other hand, Hussein was also one of the few Arab leaders to have been able to stand up to the West on a regular basis, asserting Iraqi and Arab independence from Western interests and power. This, rather than the brutal repression of his own people, was the point upon which many Arabs and Muslims focused the most. In a region which has had few powerful leaders to whom people could point with pride, Saddam Hussein became something of a folk hero.
As poor of a hero as he was, the lack of any better candidates assures him a position of respect and honor for Arabs and Muslims for generations to come. Usually Muslims are regarded by Westerners as putting religion above everything else, but here we have a clear example of many Muslims doing just the opposite: even though Saddam Hussein was staunchly secular, he can still be a hero among devout Muslims because of his political accomplishments. Is this merely a contradiction in some Muslims' worldview, or a sign that their politics is more complicated than Western critics normally give them credit for?
Saddam Hussein's conflicted relationship with religion has also created a conundrum for conservative critics in the West: should they condemn him as an example of what happens with Islam is allowed to control society, or should they condemn him as an example of what happens when a fully secular government is allowed to control society? Religious conservatives would like to attack both, but they can't attack both in the person of Saddam Hussein at the same time.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was very secular and, as a consequence, there was far more freedom for women and non-Muslims than in most other Arab Muslim nations. In contrast to the religiously authoritarian direction which Iraq has taken under the American occupation, though, such secularism is a difficult target for criticism for religious conservatives who otherwise treat secular governments as inspired by the Antichrist. Indeed, it's not unusual to see religious conservatives complaining about events in Iraqi politics that they might otherwise praise in American politics.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein only turned to religion near the end of his reign when he desperately needed anything that would bolster support. Conservative critics in the West have tended to focus on this, ignoring the fact that he was only using religion for political purposes - something we see in the West as well. Lumping Saddam Hussein with other Islamist leaders and movements is also likely to be inaccurate because Hussein himself was a frequent target of Islamist criticism for being too secular and not enforcing Islamic religious laws.
If anything Saddam Hussein and his rule can serve as a bad example both to secular atheists and to religious theists. First, he is a good example that a secular government cannot necessarily be trusted to be completely just or good and that removing religion from government will not necessarily lead to great improvements. Secularization means little without democratization and liberalization. Second, Saddam Hussein is also an example of how donning a cloak of religious piety will not automatically provide political legitimacy to a troubled, unpopular leader. Religious theists shouldn't trust a politician merely because they use the right religious language and proclaim their desire to serve religious tradition.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_husseinsadam.htm
**************************************
A Muslim I once knew told me that it was not against Islamic law to lie to infidels. He was a used car salseman. I guess that same type of thinking is how Hitchens justifies his repeated lies in his book, "god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." Since he affirms qualitative hedonism, and thus is a consequentialist, what does a little lying matter so long as you can "eradicate faith?"
"I shall simply say that those who regard [Saddam Hussein's] regime as a 'secular' one are deluding themselves" -- Christopher Hitchens, "god is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything", p. 25)
Let's see what the "About Atheism/Agnosticism" web site claims (do I need to point out that I'm invoking a source not sympathetic with my own view of the world?):
********************************
Name:
Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti
Important Dates:
Born: April 28, 1937, in al-Awja, Tikrit, Iraq
Executed: December 30, 2006
Joined the Baath Party: 1956
Married his cousin, Sajida: 1958
Attempted Assassination of Iraqi Prime Minister: 1959
Aided in Baath Party Coup of Iraq: 1968
Seized Power in Iraq: 1979
Invaded Iran: 1980
Married Second Wife, his daughter's teacher Samira Shahbandar: 1984
Invaded Kuwait: 1990
Captured by U.S. forces: December 13, 2003
Titles:
Great Uncle
Glorious Leader
Field Marshall
President
Biography:
Born in a mud-brick house to a family of sheep-herders, Saddam Hussein rose to become one of the world's most brutal dictators of the latter-half of the 20th century. Key to this was his participation in the secular and nationalist Iraqi Baath party. Originally this party was united with a Syrian Baath party, but the two eventually split due to doctrinal differences. The Arabic word ba'th means "resurrection" or "renaissance" and is used here as a reference to the ideal of a renaissance of Arab power in the world — a curious stance, given that the power they were striving for was secular while the historical power was constituted at least largely on the basis of religion. This secular/religious contradiction in Baathist ideology would play a role in Saddam Hussein's own rule.
Socialist and secular in nature, the Iraqi Baath party has a great deal in common with European fascist movements, both religious and secular, with its reliance on developing extremist national consciousness as a means of uniting the people against enemies, both internal and external. Islamist movements in the Arab world have much the same goal, though they base their political philosophy on Islamic religious ideology rather than secular socialism. The fact that both secular and religious ideologies can achieve popularity with the same goals despite being opposed to each other indicates that they are both are tapping into something important.
Saddam Hussein received law degrees from the University of Cairo and the University of Baghdad, with the latter occurring after a non-violent Baathist coup in Iraq. At this time Hussein served in various positions within the party and the government, but in 1979 when President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr announced his retirement, Hussein managed to assume the positions of Chairman and President, consolidating a great deal of power in his hands alone.
Saddam Hussein: Secular or Religious Ruler?
Saddam Hussein's popularity in the Muslim and Arab world varied greatly, depending upon whom one asked and what the political situation at the time was. Because of his repression of the religious Shi'ite minority in Iraq and his long war with Shi'ite Iran, it was difficult for Shi'ite Muslims to find anything good to say about Hussein. In addition, because of his staunch secularism and his secularization of Iraq, it was been difficult for devout and conservative Muslims of any type to think well of him.
On the other hand, Hussein was also one of the few Arab leaders to have been able to stand up to the West on a regular basis, asserting Iraqi and Arab independence from Western interests and power. This, rather than the brutal repression of his own people, was the point upon which many Arabs and Muslims focused the most. In a region which has had few powerful leaders to whom people could point with pride, Saddam Hussein became something of a folk hero.
As poor of a hero as he was, the lack of any better candidates assures him a position of respect and honor for Arabs and Muslims for generations to come. Usually Muslims are regarded by Westerners as putting religion above everything else, but here we have a clear example of many Muslims doing just the opposite: even though Saddam Hussein was staunchly secular, he can still be a hero among devout Muslims because of his political accomplishments. Is this merely a contradiction in some Muslims' worldview, or a sign that their politics is more complicated than Western critics normally give them credit for?
Saddam Hussein's conflicted relationship with religion has also created a conundrum for conservative critics in the West: should they condemn him as an example of what happens with Islam is allowed to control society, or should they condemn him as an example of what happens when a fully secular government is allowed to control society? Religious conservatives would like to attack both, but they can't attack both in the person of Saddam Hussein at the same time.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was very secular and, as a consequence, there was far more freedom for women and non-Muslims than in most other Arab Muslim nations. In contrast to the religiously authoritarian direction which Iraq has taken under the American occupation, though, such secularism is a difficult target for criticism for religious conservatives who otherwise treat secular governments as inspired by the Antichrist. Indeed, it's not unusual to see religious conservatives complaining about events in Iraqi politics that they might otherwise praise in American politics.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein only turned to religion near the end of his reign when he desperately needed anything that would bolster support. Conservative critics in the West have tended to focus on this, ignoring the fact that he was only using religion for political purposes - something we see in the West as well. Lumping Saddam Hussein with other Islamist leaders and movements is also likely to be inaccurate because Hussein himself was a frequent target of Islamist criticism for being too secular and not enforcing Islamic religious laws.
If anything Saddam Hussein and his rule can serve as a bad example both to secular atheists and to religious theists. First, he is a good example that a secular government cannot necessarily be trusted to be completely just or good and that removing religion from government will not necessarily lead to great improvements. Secularization means little without democratization and liberalization. Second, Saddam Hussein is also an example of how donning a cloak of religious piety will not automatically provide political legitimacy to a troubled, unpopular leader. Religious theists shouldn't trust a politician merely because they use the right religious language and proclaim their desire to serve religious tradition.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_husseinsadam.htm
**************************************
A Muslim I once knew told me that it was not against Islamic law to lie to infidels. He was a used car salseman. I guess that same type of thinking is how Hitchens justifies his repeated lies in his book, "god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." Since he affirms qualitative hedonism, and thus is a consequentialist, what does a little lying matter so long as you can "eradicate faith?"
The Argument from Areligious Experience
"Some of them [people who rejected religious faith] had blinding moments of unconviction that were every bit as instantanious, though perhaps less epileptic and apocalyptic (and later more rationally and morally justified) than Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus road." - Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, p. 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)