The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 23 of 32

PREV PAGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NEXT PAGE

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ethan:
The above statement manages to illustrate a very flawed equivication at the heart of most arguements between believers and their detractors.

It's true science can probably never claim to prove anything absolutely. True science should never and would never claim to anything resembling epistemological imperialism. Rather science is valid in a range which varies in it's ability to predict. The greatest scientific theories are are the ones which manage to predict the most fantastic occurences sight unseen which sometimes don't become validated for decades at a time, as in the case of many of Einstein's prediction. Newton is the best example of science's measured worth through predictive range. The X's fundamentally ingrained in his equations fail on the quantum level, but these failings are immaterial to it's true worth in a range of predictive knowledge regarding gravity.

Theists often get it wrong when they try to equate the validity of scientific knowledge to the purely backward looking philosophies religions use to describe the existence of the natural world. That all crucial moment of creation is their first and final obsession...it's the true face of the 'causality' chain so central to the visions of theistic thinkers like Spinoza and Liebenitz. Science is not dependent on such foundational issues. Luckily(heh ironic)it just so happens to be the case, science's predictive values often work in both directions when it comes to temporal observations.

If I'm not mistaken, theism offers little by way of similar predictave value. It may try, but I don't think anyone's been bowled over by any one result yet. That said, it doesn't really need to. Religion often seems to derive it's greatest value out of foundational theories, whether used for justifying moral behavior or creating a sense of comfort and place in the vast universe. Faith is religion's function, which does not adhere to the logical apprehensions of time and space. Causality is a surprisingly weak principle inside the labratory.

The equivication difficulties for theists and their detractors continue beyond arguements of science. For one, nonbelief driven behavior does not equal atheism. Same can be said for overstated aethistic proclomations that deistic religions are at the root of evil. It would be more usefull for aethists to claim that evil is at the root of what enables religious thinking...and in turn religious thinking is often a mechanism which enables prolific amounts of evil to be perpatrated. Without staking a claim on either side...I do believe this is the articulation most anti-theist want to make. Evil is fundamentally a process of mistaken thinking. And I do personally believe deistic religions often perprate no small amount of evil when it tries to force the world around it to it's own shape...enforcing it's own predictions down upon us...red in the tooth and claw...rather than resigning itself to the rather benign meadows characterizing the eternal "waiting for god-o" that is faith.

Well, Ethan, you've missed my basic point. You seem to be taking me to be suggesting that religion can answer the same questions as science tries to answer, and if I were trying to claim such a thing, you'd be right to take me to task. Fortunately for me, that's not at all what I am saying.

My post was in response to the belief that theism is an inherently illogical set of beliefs because its foundation is, ultimately, something that is impossible to prove. This, the thinking goes, is irrational. Often, the folks who make these sorts of arguments use scientific knowledge in contrast to religious knowledge, and claim that as opposed to religion, the data of the sciences can be proven; hence, they are rational, and I am not.

In the first place, this sort of attitude is a result of a philosophical movement known as logical positivism. The basic belief of logical positivism is that nothing counts as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified. The fatal flaw of logical positivism is, of c

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
iii) If evil in the world could be eliminated by God limiting free will or by humans abolishing education (a ludicrous thought, education being the source of all evil, but let's go with it), then why is God waiting for humans to abolish education? Unless he wants us to, so that we can spend more time thinking about him and less time thinking about important stuff, and generally significantly decrease our quality of life. Which again contradicts the hypothesis of a benevolent God, one that deserves to be worshipped.

This one seems to be in the firing line of a few Christian, and Muslim Fundementalist...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).

Hear, hear!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:25 PM

Malachite;
You ask how atheists (or agnostics, which I'll throw in since in most likely hood, that's where'd you'd throw me, tho it's a bit too simple for where I'm at) might try to determine good Vs. evil... as an -example- take a look at secular humanism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Note, I'm not necessarily adovacating it, just referencing it.
-----------------------

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is.

An absolute on what evil is, is not necessarily projected from the actions of 'an ultimate evil'.

I would say 'evil' is: that which stands as a barrier to the continuation of the species; with the directness, and scale of the action determining how 'evil' it is.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KHYRON

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I would say 'evil' is: that which stands as a barrier to the continuation of the species; with the directness, and scale of the action determining how 'evil' it is.

I don't know, in that case rape wouldn't be evil but good (since it's possible that the victim becomes pregnant and therefore aids the propagation of the species).

Evil is defined by society, regardless if the society is secular or theistic - what may be evil to some societies maybe be accepted in others, and vice versa. The only absolute evils are those evils that are condemned by every real society, and arguably every hypothetical society too.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I don't know, in that case rape wouldn't be evil but good (since it's possible that the victim becomes pregnant and therefore aids the propagation of the species).

Rape is a violent act on another Human being, I'm not advocating that an evil act is simply a physical one. If I were, bullying someone mentally until they commit suicide couldn't be considered an 'evil' act.

Rape causes the victim very real psychological problems that extend to those around them, and far from increasing chances of procreation, due to a pregnancy from the act, I would submit it reduces it. How many rape victims end up not having children because they can't trust another Human being sexually after the rape?

It's an evil act, because it can have far reaching consequences for at least the victim, that reduce the possibility for the species survival.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

LEADB

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:

I think its fair to say that someone who straps explosives to their body to blow up civilians in some sort of religious mission or someone who fly jets into buildings to kill as many civilians as possible in the name of allah.. is evil. If you disagree with this opinion then dont bother responding, you'll be dismissed as another religious nutjob..

You dont need any special qualifications to be able to recognise something as evil. To any reasonably intelligent person it should be obvious.

To your first post, I would say suicide bombers taking out civilians is evil regardless of the religious motivations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam
you can read about a group who use suicide bombing not in the name of allah.

The second statement is somewhat more of a challenge. There will be points of agreement and points of disagreement. For instance, we agree that suicide bombers directed at (or even simply 'indifferent to') civilians are committing evil acts. I'm confident we can eventually find something we will disagree on. Since the contention of the original statement is 'all evil' I believe we can safely say no, as at least some evil is committed 'free and clear' of religious influence (what a shocker, eh?)

KHYRON

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:56 PM

This is going to sound really horrible and I apologise for it, but it actually underlines my point that that definition isn't completely workable a bit more. So let's assume the rape victim isn't a healthy, fertile woman, let's assume instead that it's somebody who's a burden to society, a mentally handicapped person or an old pensioner long past child-bearing age. In a way, these acts would be considered to be even more evil by society than the rape of a healthy young woman, even though these two would be representative of people not actively contributing to the advancement of the society, perhaps even hindering it if it's a society that can't really afford to support them.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

LEADB

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).

Hear, hear!

I really don't want to go too far down this path, personally, I think it is silly to try and prove the 'title' of this thread as true. It is patently false.

While certainly we can refine what is good and evil, I'm willing to wager you will find that of those posting here, once all the 'fireworks are done', we will agree on 90% what constitutes good Vs. evil.

Since the topic is "going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil" I can close this topic down immediately. The answer is no. Sad to say, I'm not perfect. I have committed evil, and said evil is not, and was not, religiously inspired, motivated, intitiated, caused, or any other way tied to religion. I will say I regret such occaisions, and do henceforth intend to reduce my evil and increase my good. However, this is sufficient to prove the point, you really don't need anything more.

PREV PAGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NEXT PAGE