Ben Stein Expelled - Page 63

Eomer · 05-13-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arakkis

If you feel you can present your points without telling me how stupid I am, then by all means do so.

For about the fifth time, find anywhere in my posts prior to your temper tantrum about personal attacks where I actually, you know, personally attacked you.

Arakkis · 05-13-2008, 10:27 PM

Dude, I just asked you to be a little more civil. You started getting a little too uppity and I asked you to tone it down. You have had some great posts, but I didn't appreciate things like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eomer

I don't even know how to respond to such a fucking retarded statement.

It adds nothing to the discussion but was nestled in a very good post that did. Sorry if I offended you or something, but I replied to you several times after that.

Schatze · 05-13-2008, 11:16 PM

Don't conflate laws and morality. They are not the same thing by any means. There is nothing wrong with banging a willing 17 year old chick (I wouldn't, and I tend to look down upon those who do if there is a 4-5 year age gap, but that's just personal opinion). Or is every other country in the world (pretty much) morally delinquent as their age of consent is generally 16 or lower? Also, what does it say that in laboratory settings, controlling for extraneous variables by masking the age of the person in the photo, males tend to find 16-17 year olds to be the most attractive? (hint; entering reproductive prime, both in fertility and survivability of both mother and infant). Of course, without the masking, the laws of the land will change people's responses, but that's beside the point. Anyways, that was tangential to the main point.

The corollary to that is that religious laws are not morality, either. They may reflect an underlying moral code, but not necessarily and, anyhow, they don't equate to morality either.

In fact, I'd argue that religious laws are attempts to codify morality in a society; by necessity, they must be in accordance with two fundamentals; 1.) Perpetuation of said society, 2.) Perpetuation of the religion. Without those two corollaries, the society fails, the religion fails, and the codification of morality fails as well.

Thus we can see that not only is religion once removed from morality itself by simply being an attempted contemporary codification of morality (or more rightly, laws), but we also see that there necessarily be at least two other factors considered when creating these laws that may have nothing to do with morality itself.

Morality stemming from religion is a no-go from the start. The counter-argument is that the coded moralities are handed down from a supreme infallible being who gets to define what morality is, but this is a dead end street as we see that religious morality does not remain contemporaneous with the society in which it exists, and therefore must try to force its moral code on society, or change and adapt the moral code to suit the current societal climate. Thus, we can eliminate the idea that these codifications are divinely inspired ultimate truth because they quite obviously aren't an ultimate and universal truth, and indeed anything beyond the most simple formulations of religious morality tend to be archaic, brutal, and amoral as judged by the plurality of those living today (in large swathes of the world at least).

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love thy neighbour as thy love thyself. Very simple formulations that certainly predate Christianity. But what about all those other moral codes in the bible? They somehow tend to be forgotten. Except by bigots who choose choice bits (and I admit, take those out of context) to use to justify hatred or proscriptions on behavior. But what about all the others? Where did they go? Why don't even the most devout, fundamentalist protestants follow them? Because they aren't morality, but codification of morality (i.e. laws) that have long since become nonsensical.

Agraza · 05-13-2008, 11:52 PM

I couldn't agree more about the difference in law and morality. I tend to avoid the those who confuse the two and the discussion altogether because it is just too disappointing. I have more faith in my fellow man than the majority deserve.

Schatze · 05-14-2008, 01:11 AM

Yeah, people tend to think norms, laws, folkways, etc. are morality, when in fact, they aren't.

They may have underlying moral principles that guided their creation, but then again, they may not (and are at best removed from morality by one or more degrees). On Liberty, although obviously a bit dated (heh), goes into quite a bit of detail in this. Although morality itself is not addressed much in and of itself, when you consider that Mill was viewing things through a utilitarian moral frame work, it tends to tie things in.

But there are a lot of tie ins that argue man's moral nature is distinct from codified laws or by the tyranny of the majority, and only through freedom (limited to not harming others) can man truly be moral.

Someone whose a philosophy major should dumb down some Hegel and Kant, just to make my brain explode.

AngryGerbil · 05-14-2008, 02:09 AM

History shows us that 'The Golden Rule' existed before your religion. (Whoever you may be, and for that matter, whatever your current religion may be. Yes, this includes the teachings of Jesus.)

If that rule is the basic cornerstone of human morality, history is proof that it didn't need any modern religion to exist and I (as well as many others) are proof that it still doesn't.

The fact that it isn't one of the Ten Commandments is, to me, overwhelmingly indicative.

The lesson I gather from it is simply that your religion may very well dictate morality, and may have been doing so for centuries for the vast majority of humans, but is by no means what-so-ever...the source of it.

*shrug*

I must say that I am very much personally enjoying the fact that this thread and others like it all over the place (about Ben's movie) are boiling down to fundamental religious debates.

Every time in history religion has come up against science it has lost. Sometimes it takes a while, but the "Big W" is all but assured once the battle has started. And it has most obviously started here on the topic of Genesis.

Aamina · 05-14-2008, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryGerbil

Every time in history religion has come up against science it has lost.

I don't know how many times I have to say that religion and science can and do co-exist. As far as many people--although perhaps people not in this thread--are concerned, one can prove another. All the people not bitching and whining in the Ben Stein is Wrong But I'm An Intellectual--Here Let Me Prove It thread may be quietly holding the sure knowledge that both God and fundamental principles of the universe exist simultaneously.

AngryGerbil · 05-14-2008, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aamina

I don't know how many times I have to say that religion and science can and do co-exist. As far as many people--although perhaps people not in this thread--are concerned, one can prove another. All the people not bitching and whining in the Ben Stein is Wrong But I'm An Intellectual--Here Let Me Prove It thread may be quietly holding the sure knowledge that both God and fundamental principles of the universe exist simultaneously.

And they most certainly have been quiet.

It is my observation that they only co-exist until they don't.

I mean, you could practically make a chart showing "Amount of Real Influence God(s) Has(ve) in the Universe" vs. "Amount of Scientific Knowledge Man Has Aquired" over time and it would be a perfect 45 degree line. God has been the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, the Wind, the Lightning, the reason why you lost a battle, the reason why you had a son, the reason why your sister died....he has been the reason for everything....until he was shown not to be.

What's that? Ball of burning hydrogen? Lots of balls of burning hydrogen? Electricity? Polio? What you say?

But I'm sure this trend will end with Evolution vs Genesis. Yep.

Kaio · 05-14-2008, 02:44 AM

Yep, agreed i kinda argued that a while ago. I wonder how many times thing repeat it long threads like this.

Religion as the god of the gaps has been on the losing side to science whenever science fills in those gaps. Old religions are filtered out into mythology because science makes them out to be full of shit.

The only religions left are those that changed/adapted to science (rather then the other way around) or new ones whom didn't disagree or try to explain natural phenomenon. People in all times however seem to need to believe in something supernatural. Whether it's some elemental god(s), Krishna, Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah.

I think it's more an issue of the human psyche, perhaps it satisfies the part of us that wants to believe in an infallible being watching over us. The part that was satisfied by out parents when we were kids. It also gives us comfort knowing that we are included as a part of a group/community of like minded people. Religion gives so much to people whether it's real or not (yes, I lean towards the it's probably not real group).

Schatze · 05-14-2008, 03:49 AM

Christianity definitely doesn't mesh with science (well, some sects, other sects are fine), what with the miracles, the demons, and all that stuff.

That's why scientists since the very beginning (exception, the notable Catholic ones) were largely Deists. Christians like to include Deism under their umbrella because it contains many luminaries, but Deism itself goes all the way back to classical Greece and has almost nothing to do with Christianity. Even self-identified Christians of the period who worked in the birth of science tended to have a Deistic, non-personal god or first cause as their spiritual foundation.

Religion and science are not incompatible, as long as you realize Apollo's chariot will not fall from the heavens to smite your enemies, or that there is a personal God at work making sure you win the lottery.

edit: my explanation for religion; humans are pattern seeking creatures. In fact, we quite often spot illusory patterns, through all sorts of heuristics and confirmation bias and blah blah blah. If there is a pattern, there must be a cause; some overarching thing that initiated the (illusory) patterns. From there, the development of religion begins to bisect as particular cultures predict certain deities with certain characteristics pertaining to the world they live in.

Let's go Greek. The sea is a treacherous place, ships lost, crews died. So you assume something is at work here. A force that governs the sea. You make sacrifices to ensure a safe voyage. The every safe voyage with a sacrifice cements that knowledge in place; the voyages that make a sacrifice and do not return, you explain by anthropomorphizing this force, give it a personality and characteristics. That the ship brought disfavor to such and such entity, that someone blasphemed, someone did whatever. The unsuccessful voyages are disregarded or explained away due to confirmation bias, while the sacrifice to the god of the sea takes root. From there it mushrooms, taking on a self-reinforcing cycle.

Personally, I find religions that don't anthropomorphisize their deities to be much more interesting. Hindu mythology in particular.

GrobbeeTrull2.0 · 05-14-2008, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Personally, I find religions that don't anthropomorphisize their deities to be much more interesting. Hindu mythology in particular.

You don't have the first fucking clue about Hindu deities then.

Hindu deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chrisb3 · 05-14-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arakkis

That was simply an exaggerated example to show that we will do what we consider immoral things under certain circumstances unless our behavior is checked by something.

If someone puts you under massive emotional stress and you react badly to it, nothing is going to stop you unless there is a really really oppressive authority. No one is arguing for that and a non religious one will give the same effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Or a religion that promises supernatural reprisal for such behavior. And it doesn't even have to be hell; it could be as simple as karma.

I forgot that murders didn't happen in more religious times! Yep no waves of crusaders killing every jew in sight before killing whole cities of muslims! No priests burning women as witches because they spurned their advances. Yep "Kill them all, God will recognise his own".
You need to study the middle ages, a time when people were genuinely religious, it didn't stop them doing the most immoral shit imaginable.
I think the murder / violent crime rate is much lower now in places like europe where people arn't too religious anymore (compared to the religious past).
And yeah people have been just as violent without religion as an excuse, guess what it doesn't make a difference, these people will find something else to justify attrocities.

Arn't you one of the people who where arguing against evolution / for creationism earlier? I'm confused you seem to be agreeing that religion is false but promoting it as a tool for law enforcement, maybe I'm wrong please correct me on what exactly you belive here.

Zerai · 05-14-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of “pretty childish” legends and belief in God as a “product of human weaknesses,” according to a letter to be auctioned this week.

Einstein, who was Jewish, also rejects the notion that Jews were God’s chosen people.

The letter was written in German in 1954 to philosopher Eric Gutkind.

It is to be auctioned in London, England, on Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions, and is expected to fetch between $12,000 and $16,000 US.

Einstein writes "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1879, he also adds that "for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

Thought this was amusing.

Belief in God a 'product of human weaknesses': Einstein letter

Eomer · 05-14-2008, 09:35 AM

I saw that they said the letter would probably auction for around 15k. That'd be a neat thing to have, for sure.

PerritoBites · 05-14-2008, 09:39 AM

I would buy it and carry it on my pocket... if I had the money to spare.

05-13-2008, 11:16 PM	#933 (permalink)
Schatze Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,505 +1 Internets	Don't conflate laws and morality. They are not the same thing by any means. There is nothing wrong with banging a willing 17 year old chick (I wouldn't, and I tend to look down upon those who do if there is a 4-5 year age gap, but that's just personal opinion). Or is every other country in the world (pretty much) morally delinquent as their age of consent is generally 16 or lower? Also, what does it say that in laboratory settings, controlling for extraneous variables by masking the age of the person in the photo, males tend to find 16-17 year olds to be the most attractive? (hint; entering reproductive prime, both in fertility and survivability of both mother and infant). Of course, without the masking, the laws of the land will change people's responses, but that's beside the point. Anyways, that was tangential to the main point. The corollary to that is that religious laws are not morality, either. They may reflect an underlying moral code, but not necessarily and, anyhow, they don't equate to morality either. In fact, I'd argue that religious laws are attempts to codify morality in a society; by necessity, they must be in accordance with two fundamentals; 1.) Perpetuation of said society, 2.) Perpetuation of the religion. Without those two corollaries, the society fails, the religion fails, and the codification of morality fails as well. Thus we can see that not only is religion once removed from morality itself by simply being an attempted contemporary codification of morality (or more rightly, laws), but we also see that there necessarily be at least two other factors considered when creating these laws that may have nothing to do with morality itself. Morality stemming from religion is a no-go from the start. The counter-argument is that the coded moralities are handed down from a supreme infallible being who gets to define what morality is, but this is a dead end street as we see that religious morality does not remain contemporaneous with the society in which it exists, and therefore must try to force its moral code on society, or change and adapt the moral code to suit the current societal climate. Thus, we can eliminate the idea that these codifications are divinely inspired ultimate truth because they quite obviously aren't an ultimate and universal truth, and indeed anything beyond the most simple formulations of religious morality tend to be archaic, brutal, and amoral as judged by the plurality of those living today (in large swathes of the world at least). Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love thy neighbour as thy love thyself. Very simple formulations that certainly predate Christianity. But what about all those other moral codes in the bible? They somehow tend to be forgotten. Except by bigots who choose choice bits (and I admit, take those out of context) to use to justify hatred or proscriptions on behavior. But what about all the others? Where did they go? Why don't even the most devout, fundamentalist protestants follow them? Because they aren't morality, but codification of morality (i.e. laws) that have long since become nonsensical. Last edited by Schatze : 05-13-2008 at 11:35 PM.

05-14-2008, 01:11 AM	#935 (permalink)
Schatze Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,505 +1 Internets	Yeah, people tend to think norms, laws, folkways, etc. are morality, when in fact, they aren't. They may have underlying moral principles that guided their creation, but then again, they may not (and are at best removed from morality by one or more degrees). On Liberty, although obviously a bit dated (heh), goes into quite a bit of detail in this. Although morality itself is not addressed much in and of itself, when you consider that Mill was viewing things through a utilitarian moral frame work, it tends to tie things in. But there are a lot of tie ins that argue man's moral nature is distinct from codified laws or by the tyranny of the majority, and only through freedom (limited to not harming others) can man truly be moral. Someone whose a philosophy major should dumb down some Hegel and Kant, just to make my brain explode. Last edited by Schatze : 05-14-2008 at 01:14 AM.

05-14-2008, 02:09 AM	#936 (permalink)
AngryGerbil zero signal Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 3,555	History shows us that 'The Golden Rule' existed before your religion. (Whoever you may be, and for that matter, whatever your current religion may be. Yes, this includes the teachings of Jesus.) If that rule is the basic cornerstone of human morality, history is proof that it didn't need any modern religion to exist and I (as well as many others) are proof that it still doesn't. The fact that it isn't one of the Ten Commandments is, to me, overwhelmingly indicative. The lesson I gather from it is simply that your religion may very well dictate morality, and may have been doing so for centuries for the vast majority of humans, but is by no means what-so-ever...the source of it. shrug I must say that I am very much personally enjoying the fact that this thread and others like it all over the place (about Ben's movie) are boiling down to fundamental religious debates. Every time in history religion has come up against science it has lost. Sometimes it takes a while, but the "Big W" is all but assured once the battle has started. And it has most obviously started here on the topic of Genesis. __________________ Doesn't speak the language. Holds no currency.

05-14-2008, 03:49 AM	#940 (permalink)
Schatze Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,505 +1 Internets	Christianity definitely doesn't mesh with science (well, some sects, other sects are fine), what with the miracles, the demons, and all that stuff. That's why scientists since the very beginning (exception, the notable Catholic ones) were largely Deists. Christians like to include Deism under their umbrella because it contains many luminaries, but Deism itself goes all the way back to classical Greece and has almost nothing to do with Christianity. Even self-identified Christians of the period who worked in the birth of science tended to have a Deistic, non-personal god or first cause as their spiritual foundation. Religion and science are not incompatible, as long as you realize Apollo's chariot will not fall from the heavens to smite your enemies, or that there is a personal God at work making sure you win the lottery. edit: my explanation for religion; humans are pattern seeking creatures. In fact, we quite often spot illusory patterns, through all sorts of heuristics and confirmation bias and blah blah blah. If there is a pattern, there must be a cause; some overarching thing that initiated the (illusory) patterns. From there, the development of religion begins to bisect as particular cultures predict certain deities with certain characteristics pertaining to the world they live in. Let's go Greek. The sea is a treacherous place, ships lost, crews died. So you assume something is at work here. A force that governs the sea. You make sacrifices to ensure a safe voyage. The every safe voyage with a sacrifice cements that knowledge in place; the voyages that make a sacrifice and do not return, you explain by anthropomorphizing this force, give it a personality and characteristics. That the ship brought disfavor to such and such entity, that someone blasphemed, someone did whatever. The unsuccessful voyages are disregarded or explained away due to confirmation bias, while the sacrifice to the god of the sea takes root. From there it mushrooms, taking on a self-reinforcing cycle. Personally, I find religions that don't anthropomorphisize their deities to be much more interesting. Hindu mythology in particular. Last edited by Schatze : 05-14-2008 at 04:00 AM.

05-14-2008, 09:39 AM	#945 (permalink)
PerritoBites Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PR, UY, ROC Posts: 1,928	I would buy it and carry it on my pocket... if I had the money to spare. __________________

05-13-2008, 11:52 PM	#934 (permalink)
Agraza Full Retard Join Date: May 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 1,489	I couldn't agree more about the difference in law and morality. I tend to avoid the those who confuse the two and the discussion altogether because it is just too disappointing. I have more faith in my fellow man than the majority deserve.

05-14-2008, 02:44 AM	#939 (permalink)
Kaio Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,046 +4 Internets	Yep, agreed i kinda argued that a while ago. I wonder how many times thing repeat it long threads like this. Religion as the god of the gaps has been on the losing side to science whenever science fills in those gaps. Old religions are filtered out into mythology because science makes them out to be full of shit. The only religions left are those that changed/adapted to science (rather then the other way around) or new ones whom didn't disagree or try to explain natural phenomenon. People in all times however seem to need to believe in something supernatural. Whether it's some elemental god(s), Krishna, Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah. I think it's more an issue of the human psyche, perhaps it satisfies the part of us that wants to believe in an infallible being watching over us. The part that was satisfied by out parents when we were kids. It also gives us comfort knowing that we are included as a part of a group/community of like minded people. Religion gives so much to people whether it's real or not (yes, I lean towards the it's probably not real group).

05-14-2008, 09:35 AM	#944 (permalink)
Eomer You mean I can change this? Neat! Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 10,202 +39 Internets	I saw that they said the letter would probably auction for around 15k. That'd be a neat thing to have, for sure.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: