Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: BloodBird on 17 Jun 2014, 09:49
-
I ran a quick search and found no topics on this matter so I assume there is none. If there is, feel free to lock this etc. and point me towards the existing one.
There is a matter of grave importance in our world today that I believe people here will want to support. that matter is
The abolition of Blasphemy Laws (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOoVp_rLM3U).
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. No faith - including non-faith - should be held higher than another, and to enforce laws - many enforced with death - for 'blaspheming' from some faiths is a breach of human rights.
I hope to hear from you on this matter.
-
I would say, having lived in places with laws against Apostasy and Blasphemy, that maybe there are better things we can do than impose our first world morals on places that could better use help in other area. I suggest education and sanitation.
-
I think helping remove land mines and getting potable water is a pretty cool start.
-
I would say, having lived in places with laws against Apostasy and Blasphemy, that maybe there are better things we can do than impose our first world morals on places that could better use help in other area. I suggest education and sanitation.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if someone thinks that I don't have a right to live (as an atheist), why should I care if they have enough to drink? Why should I care to feed those who want to kill gay people for being born that way?
As far as I'm concerned, that whole "love your enemies" thing makes no more sense to me than the rest of the religion. I think our foreign aid should be predicated on tolerance in a society. Besides, it's not like there aren't plenty of more tolerant societies that could use our aid, and in my mind, deserve it more.
-
I read this entire thread without realizing it was about real life until I finally checked the forum.
I thought we were talking about Amarr RP.
-
I read this entire thread without realizing it was about real life until I finally checked the forum.
I thought we were talking about Amarr RP.
For what it's worth, I think that Amarr is (fictionally) nicer to gays than Uganda or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is/are.
-
I think helping remove land mines and getting potable water is a pretty cool start.
This to be honest (and not just because I have an academic interest in disaster management and the likes). Every country with the power to dictate what its people can say or do has been fairly shitty until said population has been stable enough in life security (water, food and basic employment skills) to make that approach untenable.
Hydrate, feed, educate. When those who have known suffering first hand are made strong enough to stand and eloquent enough that even classist/prejudiced segments of their society can understand their accounts, change isn't far behind.
Not to say that this is the only approach, nor the only one we should be pursuing, but being all stick and no carrot (in this case self-empowerment through necessary resource control on the part of the most vulnerable individuals in a society) has been done literally to the tune of thousand of deaths (low ball guesstimate). No reason not to push for change at the political level while pursuing a more stable situation for those affected the most, so long as it is mindful of the lash back that may occur when a state that cannot be dealt with definitively digs its heels in politically. After all, it isn't us who will suffer should hasty hard power tactics cause a crackdown.
-
Dawkins spoke out for placing people that believe in God and not in darwinian evolution into psychiatric institutions and to 'reeducate' them. Seems like he is in favour of blasphemy laws, if you blaspheme against his worldview...
Also, yes to what already has been said: Going somewhere and telling people they have to change the way they deal with something and expecting them to do so without helping them to develop the prerequisites to live by it (water and food, economically, education wise) is quite the smug imperialist attitude in my opinion. Also history showed time and again that it doesn't work.
Also, the right to freedom of expression ends really where it is hurting another's right to be treated according to the inborn dignity of human beings.
-
*Knock Knock*
"Hello? Anyone home? My name's Liberal Interventionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism), and uh... well I'm kind of out in the cold and the moment... can I crash on your couch?"
We can't wave magic Wester-Wands and make oppression the world over stop. Intervention is justified in some significant cases, but because "they have illiberal values!" as a justification for imposing a solution, whether or not it's the right or wrong morally, is a route to making everything so much worse. You can't build out of nothing, you can't plant liberal ideas and values in a country, you have to work with what's there and cultivate it. It won't change overnight, but it will change instead of just moving sideways to a different kind of fucked-up, a la Iraq.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if someone thinks that I don't have a right to live (as an atheist), why should I care if they have enough to drink? Why should I care to feed those who want to kill gay people for being born that way?
As far as I'm concerned, that whole "love your enemies" thing makes no more sense to me than the rest of the religion. I think our foreign aid should be predicated on tolerance in a society. Besides, it's not like there aren't plenty of more tolerant societies that could use our aid, and in my mind, deserve it more.
"I don't like these people or what they do. Am I going to do something to help change their outlook and maybe bring them closer to my ideas? Pfft, hell no."
-
So how many of the states that have blasphemy laws are signatories to international human rights conventions? It might be a step in the right direction but even then, the UN and international laws have historically proven rather inadequate to prevent violations of human rights or persecution in the world by those committed to doing so.
That's aside the fact that campaigns like this have to either overcome domestic apathy in Western societies in addition to overcoming the cultural and religious conditions in countries which condone laws against blasphemy and which usually have little to no separations between church and state.
I mean, it took the West hundreds of years to separate church and state, how does signing a petition to change a frankly ineffectual piece of international treaty promise to affect actual change to promote that in other countries?
-
Dawkins spoke out for placing people that believe in God and not in darwinian evolution into psychiatric institutions and to 'reeducate' them. Seems like he is in favour of blasphemy laws, if you blaspheme against his worldview... [1]
Also, yes to what already has been said: Going somewhere and telling people they have to change the way they deal with something and expecting them to do so without helping them to develop the prerequisites to live by it (water and food, economically, education wise) is quite the smug imperialist attitude in my opinion. Also history showed time and again that it doesn't work. [2]
Also, the right to freedom of expression ends really where it is hurting another's right to be treated according to the inborn dignity of human beings. [3]
1) [Citation needed.] I will believe this claim when I read it myself, from what I've seen of Richard Dawkins what you claim may very well have been a satirical example of why blasphemy laws are bullshit.
2) Fun fact for you: Blasphemy laws exist in quite a few places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law), not just in the middle east, and are being enforced in many of them. The Islamists want more of it, for instance in places like Europe (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3474/blasphemy-laws-europe).
In most European nations that have blasphemy laws it's not always enforced, when it is it's often in the form of a slap on the wrist, but this is not always the case. Hell, there was even a guy arrested on blasphemy charges in Greece for making a joke on facebook (http://www.businessinsider.com/geron-pastitsios-2012-9#ixzz27OIgb3Zp).
Of all people, Bob Dylan has fallen foul of a blasphemy-related incident because someone was offended (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/edwest/2013/12/bob-dylan-falls-foul-of-europes-neo-blasphemy-laws/).
3) I agree completely, this is why I find it offensive that people are killed for being homosexuals (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Homosexuals) or a minority faith like Christianity in muslim nations and beyond (http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/muslim-persecution-of-christians).
And this is why, I signed the petition long ago. It just did not occur to me to share it around until recently.
*EDIT* Added "not" in front of "always enforced" in point number two. How the hell did I fuck that up 0.o
-
I would say, having lived in places with laws against Apostasy and Blasphemy, that maybe there are better things we can do than impose our first world morals on places that could better use help in other area. I suggest education and sanitation.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if someone thinks that I don't have a right to live (as an atheist), why should I care if they have enough to drink? Why should I care to feed those who want to kill gay people for being born that way?
As far as I'm concerned, that whole "love your enemies" thing makes no more sense to me than the rest of the religion. I think our foreign aid should be predicated on tolerance in a society. Besides, it's not like there aren't plenty of more tolerant societies that could use our aid, and in my mind, deserve it more.
Because the best (and only) way to positively influence change on these sorts of matters is to deal with the basic problems first. People aren't going to change their blasphemy laws at your behest if they are starving or don't have clean water to drink. You're punishing the individual for the actions of the legislative, and that shit ain't cool.
Solve the basic problems first. Then you aren't viewed as a bad guy. Now you have influence and soft power.
You won't change blasphemy laws at the end of a gun.
-
Multiculturalism doesn't work, not when it allows the existence of Islamist bounty hunters who track down Scots Muslim women who decline forced marriages, or are seen talking to men at the University of Edinburgh.
-
I would say, having lived in places with laws against Apostasy and Blasphemy, that maybe there are better things we can do than impose our first world morals on places that could better use help in other area. I suggest education and sanitation.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if someone thinks that I don't have a right to live (as an atheist), why should I care if they have enough to drink? Why should I care to feed those who want to kill gay people for being born that way?
As far as I'm concerned, that whole "love your enemies" thing makes no more sense to me than the rest of the religion. I think our foreign aid should be predicated on tolerance in a society. Besides, it's not like there aren't plenty of more tolerant societies that could use our aid, and in my mind, deserve it more.
Because the best (and only) way to positively influence change on these sorts of matters is to deal with the basic problems first. People aren't going to change their blasphemy laws at your behest if they are starving or don't have clean water to drink. You're punishing the individual for the actions of the legislative, and that shit ain't cool.
Solve the basic problems first. Then you aren't viewed as a bad guy. Now you have influence and soft power.
You won't change blasphemy laws at the end of a gun.
To add to Tib's point, if it didn't have such tragic consequences it would be amusing that most terrorist and extremist groups already understand this and that it underpins their recruiting strategies while right-wing politics in western democracies still struggle to grasp its relevancy.
-
Multiculturalism doesn't work, not when it allows the existence of Islamist bounty hunters who track down Scots Muslim women who decline forced marriages, or are seen talking to men at the University of Edinburgh.
That's not a failure of multiculturalism, it's a failure of legislation and/or law enforcement.
-
Well, at least I learned something about blasphemy laws in Europe. I wasn't genuinely aware those still existed, but are they really commonly applied, or are they just a remnant of the past that has not much significance ?
Also, is that petition aimed at those laws in european countries, or at non third world countries ? That's a huge difference.
I think helping remove land mines and getting potable water is a pretty cool start.
While the other corporate hand pillages abundantly their natural resources and contributes to make them stay in their bankrupt, corrupted poverty and misery, because our own interests want it that way.
But it would still be a step ahead yes, considering we ain't even helping that much for now. However even with such initiatives, while the aforementioned point will still be widely practiced, even fixing these basic issues will do nothing eventually. You can't just make people live better by providing them food, water, and basic needs if you continue to pillage their countries and corrupt their governments. The only thing you will do is to render them even more dependent.
-
I read this entire thread without realizing it was about real life until I finally checked the forum.
I thought we were talking about Amarr RP.
I double-checked the address bar to make sure I hadn't ended up on Tumblr somehow.
-
I read this entire thread without realizing it was about real life until I finally checked the forum.
I thought we were talking about Amarr RP.
I double-checked the address bar to make sure I hadn't ended up on Tumblr somehow.
Nobody's been told "check your privilege!" yet. Definitely not tumblr.
On a more serious response: I think focusing on blasphemy laws in particular is not a good start, because to those being accused it can often come off as "hey, we want to be allowed to bash your religion in particular" (and watching how conversations go in OOC when religion comes up, it's not an entirely inaccurate response). So if you just march in and insist that you be allowed to insult something which is held closely by a great many people in a given area, yes, you can reasonably expect that you aren't going to get a warm welcome.
-
Huh, I am not sure there are laws against usual insults between people, I don't see why when it suddenly comes to insult over someone's religion there should suddenly be special laws against that (cf blasphemy laws). That's completely silly.
Either you create a law against any kind of insult and abuse, either your resort to traditional means like laws against defamation, abuse, etc. Religion doesn't need special treatment.
-
Huh, I am not sure there are laws against usual insults between people, I don't see why when it suddenly comes to insult over someone's religion there should suddenly be special laws against that (cf blasphemy laws). That's completely silly.
Either you create a law against any kind of insult and abuse, either your resort to traditional means like laws against defamation, abuse, etc. Religion doesn't need special treatment.
Doesn't make it a good idea to go in and touch/deface/insult everything they hold sacred. Even if their religion makes no sense, telling them so is the fastest way to lose popularity and have them run you out of the country before you can even get to doing the important thing such as fixing their government or establishing schools and education systems for their children.
And what will you do next after they run you out of the country? Send the military in to occupy their population center like what we used to do during the Colonial Era?
-
2) Fun fact for you: Blasphemy laws exist in quite a few places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law), not just in the middle east, and are being enforced in many of them. The Islamists want more of it, for instance in places like Europe (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3474/blasphemy-laws-europe).
In most European nations that have blasphemy laws it's always enforced, when it is it's often in the form of a slap on the wrist, but this is not always the case. Hell, there was even a guy arrested on blasphemy charges in Greece for making a joke on facebook (http://www.businessinsider.com/geron-pastitsios-2012-9#ixzz27OIgb3Zp).
Of all people, Bob Dylan has fallen foul of a blasphemy-related incident because someone was offended (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/edwest/2013/12/bob-dylan-falls-foul-of-europes-neo-blasphemy-laws/).
I think this is where any effort on the majority of our parts should focus.
For the moment, ignore the horribleness around the world. In order to change many places it requires military occupation to affect change, to include establishing schools and getting them basic medical care, let alone introduce human rights. The Taliban threatens polio vaccination efforts! (http://www.wired.com/polio-vaccine/)
No, we have to correct the documentary issues within our own states and protect against lawfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare) targeting our culture and way of life.
Blasfemi betegner gudsbespottelse. Blasfemi er straffbart i Norge etter straffelovens § 142. Blasfemi er der definert videre enn bare gudsbespottelse, idet loven forbyr å vise ringeakt "for nogen trosbekjennelse hvis utøvelse her i riket er tillatt eller noget lovlig her bestående religionssamfunds troslærdommer eller gudsdyrkelse". Dette inkluderer også for eksempel "ringeakt mot sakramenter, trosbekjennelser og religiøse seremonier".
Påtale finner imidlertid bare sted "når allmenne hensyn krever det", og § 142 er en såkalt sovende paragraf.
Blasphemy denotes blasphemy. Blasphemy is illegal in Norway by Penal Code § 142 Blasphemy is there defined further than just blasphemy, the law prohibits showing contempt "for any creed if exercised in this country are allowed, nor any legal here consisting religionssamfunds religious doctrines or worship" . This includes for example "contempt against sacraments, creeds and religious ceremonies."
Prosecution however, occurs only "when the public interest so requires," and § 142 is a so-called sleeper section.
*I found the translation of the definition into English humorous due to gudsbespottelse translating as blasphemy along with blasfemi.
Worried about Blasphemy laws - get them stricken from your nations' laws and demand increased protections for freedom of speech!
-
Orange: This is exactly what I am doing. I want blasphemy laws to be removed entirely and not play a role anywhere to the denial of freedom of speech and basic human rights. Now, the blasphemy laws of Norway have lain dormant for quite some time, I've not found any case of it being put into action... well, ever. I'm sure there have been cases, but how far back in time they go is beyond me.
Regardless of that, I'll link here (http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/abolish-blasphemy-laws) the petition itself, the link is on the YT video I linked in the OP. If this petition goes through (and it will at this rate) the UN commission on human rights are compelled to take action, something that will hopefully render impotent any blasphemy laws in Europe, at the very least.
--------------------------------
Blasphemy laws are used to infringe upon human rights. They frequently lead to arbitary arrest, detention, poor treatment in custody including torture, dubious legal procedures and poor application of justice. The definition of the offence can be in the hands of police and judicial authorities. Governments have used blasphemy laws to silence political opponents. Individuals have fabricated blasphemy charges against others in communal disputes. Religious extremists have used blasphemy laws to attack opponents. Religious authorities have used blasphemy laws to impose orthodoxy on members minority religious groups with the sanction of the state. And people accused of blasphemy have been subject to violence by unofficial mobs.
To:
The Honorable Navanethem Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Office of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Re: Freedoms and Rights for Nonreligious and Secular People Worldwide
Dear Ms. Pillay:
We the signers humbly ask you to consider both a human rights petition and concern shared by a growing number of people persecuted for non-belief in religious dogma, including millions of atheists, agnostics and secularists around the world. Both the petition and the concern regard the enactment and enforcement of so-called blasphemy laws and their offshoots, such as defamation of religion and religious-insult “hate speech” legislation, in member states. The reality is that these blasphemy laws and “hate speech” legislation violate the cornerstone rights of freedom of expression, thought and conscience, tenuously upheld by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), Articles 18 and 19 in particular.
Advocates of blasphemy legislation and its offshoots argue that these laws protect the harmony of pluralistic societies. However, as demonstrated by a number of conclusive studies (available upon request) the enforcement of blasphemy laws actually deepens divisions among religious and secular groups, creating unnecessary civil unrest.
Discrimination and Dictatorship
In practice, blasphemy laws are used to infringe upon basic human rights, often utilized in a discriminatory and dictatorial manner, as they bestow upon inhumane leaders the legal means by which these rulers can persecute both religious minorities and non-religious groups alike.
Such legislation frequently leads to arbitrary arrest; detention; poor treatment in custody, including torture and death; dubious legal procedures; and poor application of justice. Additionally, the definition of an alleged blasphemy offense often lies in the hands of police and judicial authorities, again wielded arbitrarily and dictatorially.
Abuses of blasphemy legislation include the following:
• Governments have used blasphemy laws to silence political opponents.
• Religious authorities employ blasphemy legislation to impose doctrinal orthodoxy on members of religious groups, often with the sanction of the state.
• Religious extremists utilize blasphemy laws to attack other sects, critics and nonbelievers, frequently fatally.
• Unscrupulous individuals have fabricated blasphemy charges against others in local, communal disputes.
• Vigilante mobs have committed violence against innocent and/or defenseless individuals accused of blasphemy, whether or not truthfully.
(Specific instances of the above-mentioned abuses are also available upon request.)
Moreover, blasphemy and “religious insult” legislation often is discriminatory based on social class and status, since it creates provisions whereby a skilled and educated defendant stands far less chance of prosecution than a less educated and privileged individual.
Suppression of Basic Freedoms and Other Objections
Even in relatively democratic regions, blasphemy and religious-insult “hate speech” laws have a universal “chilling effect” upon normal freedom of expression, including and especially free speech and the right to dissent.
Blasphemy legislation is a species of libel with no real rules of evidence or proof.
Blasphemy laws are either exclusive, favoring one religion over others, or else try to be inclusive, in which case they may be inadequate for protecting religious beliefs in conflict with one another.
Moreover, the legal criteria for recognition as an authorized or accepted religious group—where laws do not protect a specific, established religion—can be problematic and often are defined poorly.
Petition by Human Rights for Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists
To oppose arbitrary and barbaric blasphemy legislation, our organization Human Rights for Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists has created a petition, attached below, appealing to the United Nations to amend Articles 1.3, 13.1 (b), 55 (c) & 76 (c) of the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice to include the non-religious and secular as an expressly protected group.
In so amending, the United Nations would be sending a clear message to its member states that imprisoning, torturing, executing and otherwise molesting secularists and nonbelievers such as atheists and agnostics is incompatible with basic human rights. As it presently stands, there are 13 countries around the world that can execute secularists and nonbelievers, along with many others that prescribe imprisonment and/or issue fines to those who do not share the majority religious view of the state or who are accused of “religious insult” or “hate speech.”
The primary aim of this limb of our petition—which has the support of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ricky Gervais, Roseanne Barr and other secular, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu signatories—is to bind member states that have refused to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976). Our petition also aims to implore the United Nations to amend the ICCPR by narrowing and tempering the restrictions on freedom of expression enunciated in Articles 18.3 and 19.3 (a) and (b), as well as Article 20.2.
In this regard, our petition is in line with the proclamation made in 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which declared that “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the [ICCPR].” (See; Human Rights Committee, “General comment no. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression,” UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 48; 2011.)
We thank you for your time and hope that you give this matter the attention that it deserves, on behalf of millions of human beings globally.
Sincerely,
Michael Sherlock
Founder and Co-Chairperson, Human Rights for Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists
http://www.MichaelSherlock.org
http://www.AtheistRepublic.com/blogs/michael-sherlock
D.M. Murdock
Co-Chairperson, Human Rights for Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists
http://FreethoughtNation.com
http://TruthBeKnown.com
http://StellarHousePublishing.com
http://www.Examiner.com/freethought-in-national/d-m-murdock
Michael Nugent
Chairperson of Atheist Ireland
http://www.MichaelNugent.com
http://www.Atheist.ie
Sincerely,
[Your name]
--------------------------------------------------------
This was my reason for sharing this with you all. It's something to think about at the very least, and if anyone of you sign it we are all that much better off. Whatever I may think of Muslims, Christians, anyone of any other faith or non-religious people, no-one has a right to harm or kill anyone because they supposedly insulted whatever religion you believe in.
There is no excuse for this. Several people have argued in this treat that blasphemy laws stem from poor social conditions and infrastructure in the middle east etc. and that we - the peoples of the western world - has no right to voice our concerns on the topic at all. Well, tough cookie for you folks, blasphemy laws exist in many other places than just the Islamic world, and they want it spread around along with their sharia laws. Hell, Saudi Arabia has called for criticism of religion to be outlawed in my country (http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/04/saudi-arabia-calls-for-criticism-of-religion-to-be-outlawed-in-norway), this is highly ironic to me coming from a nation that has laws that define atheists as terrorists (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html).
In short, poverty and poor infrastructure is not the chief reason for blasphemy laws, it's not even part of the equation. Blasphemy laws are based on religion, especially Islam, and the poverty levels have other causes. As an example again, Saudi Arabia is a very rich nation with over a fifth of the population living in piss-poor conditions (http://lightbox.time.com/2013/05/23/rich-nation-poor-people-saudi-arabia-by-lynsey-addario/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#1). One would think the Saudi elite had the decency to deal with their own internal poverty, and it seems some movement is generating on that concern.
I hope they will stick to doing that as opposed to bitching to my government that we allow freedom of speech in our own country. Freaking priorities people.
-
Just sharing this article (http://20committee.com/2014/04/07/putinism-and-the-anti-weird-coalition/) with you to put things a little bit in perspective. It's at least indirectly related, and the important bit is that our point of view we tend to consider as normal, is actually still a minority in the world.
It is a very interesting read in itself, anyway.
Also, maybe I feel a bit more concerned about crazy actions like this petition seems to be, as I feel that they only contribute to make things worse and add oil on fire. It's just stirring the bee's nest at best.
The only acceptable case were I could see that petition making sense is in the case of european countries, in the frame of the EU, or for other western powers like the US, Norway, etc. But as you say it yourself, you have yet to hear anything about blasphemy laws actually being applied in Norway, so is there really a point in doing so ? That sounds a bit like trying too hard in the case of such countries.
Well, maybe I don't see these laws and there are actually a lot of judicial cases around that happening in Europe. I can't tell sadly, maybe because I live in a country where such a thing would never happen, which makes me probably blind to other states : see, I wasn't even aware that so many western countries still had "blasphemy" laws... vOv
No, what i'm more concerned about is closer to the article I linked above.
Huh, I am not sure there are laws against usual insults between people, I don't see why when it suddenly comes to insult over someone's religion there should suddenly be special laws against that (cf blasphemy laws). That's completely silly.
Either you create a law against any kind of insult and abuse, either your resort to traditional means like laws against defamation, abuse, etc. Religion doesn't need special treatment.
Doesn't make it a good idea to go in and touch/deface/insult everything they hold sacred. Even if their religion makes no sense, telling them so is the fastest way to lose popularity and have them run you out of the country before you can even get to doing the important thing such as fixing their government or establishing schools and education systems for their children.
And what will you do next after they run you out of the country? Send the military in to occupy their population center like what we used to do during the Colonial Era?
I never said anything like that. I don't disagree with that...
-
In short, poverty and poor infrastructure is not the chief reason for blasphemy laws, it's not even part of the equation.
Small point: While this is partly true, my point wasn't to say that poverty and starvation were the causes of these issues but that you can't fight this battle by trying to attack the religion, especially in places where the Western world is seen as "The Bad Guy". You help fix the other issues, and the other stuff will come around, eventually.
-
There is much irony to be had in Americans thumbing our noses at those zany islamic nutjobs when there's a substantial, and I do mean substantial, % of Americans who want to impose Christian Sharia on the rest of the USA.
I say kill them all and let the Flying Spaghetti Monster sort them out.
My point being that even in 'first world' "advanced" countries you still have millions and millions of people who literally think the Earth is 7,000 years old and Moses talked to a bush on fire who thought he was special.
-
There is much irony to be had in Americans thumbing our noses at those zany islamic nutjobs when there's a substantial, and I do mean substantial, % of Americans who want to impose Christian Sharia on the rest of the USA.
I say kill them all and let the Flying Spaghetti Monster sort them out.
My point being that even in 'first world' "advanced" countries you still have millions and millions of people who literally think the Earth is 7,000 years old and Moses talked to a bush on fire who thought he was special.
Well this thread has gone quickly, and predictably, into catacomb territory. I've deleted the rest of my response to this and hope this that is also gets catacombed.
-
There is much irony to be had in Americans thumbing our noses at those zany islamic nutjobs when there's a substantial, and I do mean substantial, % of Americans who want to impose Christian Sharia on the rest of the USA.
I say kill them all and let the Flying Spaghetti Monster sort them out.
My point being that even in 'first world' "advanced" countries you still have millions and millions of people who literally think the Earth is 7,000 years old and Moses talked to a bush on fire who thought he was special.
Well this thread has gone quickly, and predictably, into catacomb territory. I've deleted the rest of my response to this and hope this that is also gets catacombed.
Not trolling, can you elaborate?
I was merely pointing out an imo interesting "glass house while throwing stones" issue with much of the derision aimed at third world countries.
-
I say kill them all and let the Flying Spaghetti Monster sort them out.
This. Responding in more detail off forum.
-
Wait to the FSM thing or the kill them all and let (x diety) sort them out thing because I think you may be over reacting either way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Wait to the FSM thing or the kill them all and let (x diety) sort them out thing because I think you may be over reacting either way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Real quick I'll give a more eloquent response a bit later:
1. Joking, of course!
2. Possibly getting upset for (half jokingly) disparaging someone's religion gets into meta-irony territory in a thread about abolishing blasphemy laws.
3. We should all free to believe in whatever we like, but this might also mean either all of it's ok, or none of it is. To wit, Muslims can't draw a picture of the Prophet, but Danish cartoonists can and should, however mockingly they choose. Dick move, yes, but other culture's bugaboo's shouldn't infringe on other culture's either.
Super interesting topic, Lunarisse I'll respond to you more at length privately later I hope!
-
Wait to the FSM thing or the kill them all and let (x diety) sort them out thing because I think you may be over reacting either way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Real quick I'll give a more eloquent response a bit later:
1. Joking, of course!
2. Possibly getting upset for (half jokingly) disparaging someone's religion gets into meta-irony territory in a thread about abolishing blasphemy laws.
3. We should all free to believe in whatever we like, but this might also mean either all of it's ok, or none of it is. To wit, Muslims can't draw a picture of the Prophet, but Danish cartoonists can and should, however mockingly they choose. Dick move, yes, but one culture's bugaboos shouldn't infringe on other culture's either.
Super interesting topic, Lunarisse I'll respond to you more at length privately later I hope!
-
I read this entire thread without realizing it was about real life until I finally checked the forum.
I thought we were talking about Amarr RP.
Funnily enough, the solution to this real-world problem is the same as the fictional ones with the Amarr: leave them alone and let them sort it out. Civilizations only change when the change comes from within their own societies, otherwise any outside ideas are labled as foriegn infulence and are immediately rejected. Europe used to be just as bad as any other religion-based society out there, but then they had the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and things went on from there. Any other society is capable of the same sort of change, it just requires a century or two of stability, peace and hopes for prosperity. Alas, these are things many nations in the world now lack, due in no small part to western interventionalism in the first place.
Cultural interventionism never, ever works unless you completely subjugate the population you are trying to change. If the liberal democratic west wants to launch a full-scale war on religious states, slaughter their leaders, destroy the holy sites and make anyone who grumbles about it disappear, then by all means, let's go save the world. If not, then shut up and put up. Patience is what wins the day in the end. Religious fundamentalism arises most strongly in an environment of disparity and conflict, and these two factors must be emlinated before real change can occur, as pointed out by many others in this thread.
-
Cultural interventionism is mostly a tool for memetic warfare and a matter of expanding one's own sphere of influence.
-
What I was about to post 2 days ago when my i-net broke:
1) [Citation needed.] I will believe this claim when I read it myself, from what I've seen of Richard Dawkins what you claim may very well have been a satirical example of why blasphemy laws are bullshit.
He stated this in a talkshow, where he claimed that belief in God is a delusion and a dangerous one at that (he said both quite publicly in The God Delusion and The Root of All Evil). Asked what should be done with theists that don't want to give up on their 'delusion' he said something along the lines of (I paraphrase): As they are a potential dangerous to society, they should be placed in psychiatric institution and treated for their delusion there. Anyhow, his characterisation of theism as 'dangerous delusion' really does implicate such a treatment already.
That said, I'll try to dig up that talkshow for you. I follow him as he think he's a good educater of the general public about scince - although unfortunately he does that less and less - and simply a horrible example of a scientist thinking that he's more elegible to talk about philosophy (of religion) and theology then philosophers and scientists. Still, I'm not doing an index of what he said nor am I aiming to build an archive of Darwkins. So, I might not find it.
2) Fun fact for you: Blasphemy laws exist in quite a few places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law), not just in the middle east, and are being enforced in many of them. The Islamists want more of it, for instance in places like Europe (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3474/blasphemy-laws-europe).
Fun fact: I live in Europe. I'm well aware of 'blasphemy laws' here. Germany has one:
§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations
(1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.
(2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise.
I don't think it's so bad, really. It even protects the world view of atheists, too. I'm quite in favour of sensible blasphemy laws as it protects the right of people to be treated with dignity in regard to their most fundamental and core world views. That there are blasphemy laws that aren't as good as we'd like them to be doesn't mean they are bad in themselves.
Also, it shouldn't be that hard to show basic respect for one another, neither for religious people nor for non-religious ones. Wilders, who is as right wing as it gets, by the way is no fan of freedom of religion as far as it considers Islam...
3) I agree completely, this is why I find it offensive that people are killed for being homosexuals (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Homosexuals) or a minority faith like Christianity in muslim nations and beyond (http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/muslim-persecution-of-christians).
And this is why, I signed the petition long ago. It just did not occur to me to share it around until recently.
The right to be treated according to human dignity is in the human rights convention and already is of higher concern then the right to freedom of expression, thought and opinion as well as freedom of religion and world view, as all these are deduced from the dignity of the human being and are thus, if you will, special cases of being treated accordingly.
Declarations of such nature need to stay general though, unless you get a race of who else wants to be named specifically: Polytheists, Animists, then Buddhists, Christians and ever more specific confessions and religions as well as specific wordviews. That'd be kind'a over the top.
-
Dig it up, because I'd be surprised if it's not in the context of really far out behaviour (certain versions of creationism, hearing the voice of god, etc).
But let's make it short:
Hitler Stalin Jews Muslims Religion War RAAAA!
There,
/thread
-
Fun fact: I live in Europe. I'm well aware of 'blasphemy laws' here. Germany has one:
§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations
(1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.
(2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise.
I don't think it's so bad, really. It even protects the world view of atheists, too. I'm quite in favour of sensible blasphemy laws as it protects the right of people to be treated with dignity in regard to their most fundamental and core world views. That there are blasphemy laws that aren't as good as we'd like them to be doesn't mean they are bad in themselves.
Wow. I find those rather repulsive and abhorrent. Why do they have to insert religion in simple, mere defamation laws ? Why does religion have to play some kind of special snowflake here ?
Defamation done in a manner to disturb public peace should be enough...
-
Simply because defamation of religions or similar basic world views is not simple, mere defamation. It goes against the most basic, meaning producing belief systems people can hold. And that's a given, whether you like it or not.
I always notice that if I debate with people who attack religion in EVE and then I go to counter by applying the same 'arguments' they use to their most core beliefs (like naturalistic scientism, most often). Religion, just as any other basic (whether 'secular' or not) word view plays a 'special snowflake' role by their very nature, as the part of our beliefs that produce the meaning of all other beliefs we hold. It's not about religion per se, but about this basic function that is, even in our modern societies, mainly fulfilled by religions or other metaphysical belief systems (yah, naturalistic scientism is a metaphysical position).
As such, these most basic belief systems should reasonably be assigned with special protection. I don't see anything about that which qualifies to be described as 'repulsive' or even 'abhorrent', unless one is of the (in my opinion quite misguided) opinion that religions should vanish from the face of earth anyway, because they are all 'evil'. Special status should be coming with special protection. It's a basic concept of all constitutions based on the rule of law.
-
There are laws for specific blasphemy against naturalistic scientism ?
-
§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations
(1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.
(2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise.
Naturalistic scientism is a world view conviction, so the german 'blasphemy law' encompasses the special protection of that, just as it does with Christian konfessions, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc. We even have a world view association that is pushing naturalistic scientism and they as well are protected by that law, just as christian churches etc.
By the way, in german the law isn't really called 'blasphemy law', that's what it was called in the past, now - after changing it quite a bit - it's simply the law about 'defamation of creeds, religious societies and world view associations'.
As such, the law isn't really against 'blasphemy' but against inciting hate, discrimination (and violence) against basic, fundamental world views - whether they are religious or non-religious.
-
Ah I see !
Though I still find that kind of laws rather dangerous... :ugh:
-
How in the world does that work, if in espousing a world view conviction, one defames other world view convictions?
Publicly distributing the Quran for free in a market (manner suitable to disturb the public peace) has the potential to defame/slander Christian and Jewish worldviews. The Quran fundamentally challenges the foundation of Christian belief. (Qur'an on Christianity (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Qur'an_on_Christianity)) Thus such an action is illegal?
Can the series Cosmos not be shown in Germany, since it fundamentally challenges the world view of those who ignore the scientific process (scientism?) and presents evidence against beliefs such that the world is only 5,000 years old and could disturb the public peace?
It would seem that the very act of proselytizing could result in defaming a world view and thus up to 3 years imprisonment.
-
How in the world does that work, if in espousing a world view conviction, one defames other world view convictions?
Publicly distributing the Quran for free in a market (manner suitable to disturb the public peace) has the potential to defame/slander Christian and Jewish worldviews. The Quran fundamentally challenges the foundation of Christian belief. (Qur'an on Christianity (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Qur'an_on_Christianity)) Thus such an action is illegal?
Can the series Cosmos not be shown in Germany, since it fundamentally challenges the world view of those who ignore the scientific process (scientism?) and presents evidence against beliefs such that the world is only 5,000 years old and could disturb the public peace?
It would seem that the very act of proselytizing could result in defaming a world view and thus up to 3 years imprisonment.
And this is why, blasphemy laws are a very bad idea that leads to more crap than we honestly need.
Besides, there are perfectly capable laws against defamation and spreading libel, it would count for being treated as shit over one's faith as well. Religions do not need a specific set of laws.
-
First off different rights/laws clash all the time.
But then, espousing one world view conviction doesn't mean one is defaming another. If your world view conviction is fundamentally entwined with defaming another, you should take pause and think.
That said, I don't see where the Qur'an defames/slanders Christian and Jewish worldviews. There is a difference between challanging something (even fundamentally) and defaming/slander, though you can challange in a way that is slander and slander in a challanging way. Alas, the internetcommunity seems to have forgotten that one can come withpout the other and they are not the same, it appears.
The series Cosmos can of course be shown in Germany. No, scientific progress is not scientism. Science as a practice is merely dedicated to methodological atheism and not a basic wordlview (in fact it's not a world view at all, but a practice). How you interprete the findings of science, whether you embrace them as Truth or simply as the result of empirical study is up to you and what really makes up your world view. Yes it presents evidence (not proof!) against the belief that the world is only 5000 years old, but it's not slander or defamation. If you say that people who chose to believe that the world is 5000 years old regardless of scientific evidence are all 'stupid (sub)humans' that should all be euthanized, then this is an entirely different matter and you're kind'a inciting hate crimes and violence.
And yes, the act of proselytizing could result in defaming a world view, so you better take care to proselytize in another way. It's not that difficult to do so in a civilized way.
I really think that people opposed to modern 'blasphemy laws' just want an excuse to slander and defame people and their world views, because they themselves think them silly (or 'evil') or simply because they lack the capacity to envision to challange someone in debate without taking refuge in slander and defamation.
Also, again: Mordern 'blasphemy laws' are not religion specific, but rather reflect the special protection the most core and fundamental world views should enjoy given their specific position as being fundamental beliefs.
-
I think what Orange said points at what I find dangerous with such laws. They are extremely vague and entirely depend on what people call offense, defamation, world views, and how all of this offends their world view to a point to disturb public peace. I think you will find as many interpretation of said laws as you will find people being offended over anything.
Like Muhammad caricatures... :roll:
I really think that people opposed to modern 'blasphemy laws' just want an excuse to slander and defame people and their world views, because they themselves think them silly (or 'evil') or simply because they lack the capacity to envision to challange someone in debate without taking refuge in slander and defamation.
That's really probable.
On the other hand it's rather easy to say that. It could also be really easy to say that some religious people support those laws because they are just the same way unable to debate without taking refuge behind censorship and blasphemy laws....
We can go really far with that kind of suppositions.
-
@Orange: It's actually been critized for being way too vague. But it's one of those rarely used laws, and some political parties would love to see it in a much harsher fashion (such as to stop being able to use the pope in caricatures of questionable taste (sounds familiar?) on the cover of a satiric magazine, or to defend the society against the menace of shows like Popetown).
@Nicoletta:
I think it's perfectly sane to call people like this naive, stupid or simply ignorant on this basis, quite depending of the magnitude of the (objectively) shown disconnection to reality. It is just much, much more difficult to call out certain religious beliefs for being balls-out-crazy than it is with other beliefs (such as popular conspiracy theories - you'll find remarkable similarities), simply due to the fact that this is religious, and therefore somehow sacrosanct.
Calling for euthanasia is something else since it doesn't really matter why you want to euthanize a group of people, because regardless of the reasons, this is actually a crime. Also why are we talking about euthanizing people in the first place?
-
I think what Orange said points at what I find dangerous with such laws. They are extremely vague and entirely depend on what people call offense, defamation, world views, and how all of this offends their world view to a point to disturb public peace. I think you will find as many interpretation of said laws as you will find people being offended over anything.
Like Muhammad caricatures... :roll:
I really think that people opposed to modern 'blasphemy laws' just want an excuse to slander and defame people and their world views, because they themselves think them silly (or 'evil') or simply because they lack the capacity to envision to challange someone in debate without taking refuge in slander and defamation.
That's really probable.
On the other hand it's rather easy to say that. It could also be really easy to say that some religious people support those laws because they are just the same way unable to debate without taking refuge behind censorship and blasphemy laws....
We can go really far with that kind of suppositions.
I dunno about other countries, but in Germany law professionals define exactly what is defamation and/or slander and application of laws follows these definitions. So, no, it's not a matter of people feeling offended about anything.
So... I don't think that you can reasonably claim that people hide behind these laws if they can't hide behind them to evade debate, really. Also, factually speaking, at least here in Germany, the big religious institutions don't.
@Nicoletta:
I think it's perfectly sane to call people like this naive, stupid or simply ignorant on this basis, quite depending of the magnitude of the (objectively) shown disconnection to reality. It is just much, much more difficult to call out certain religious beliefs for being balls-out-crazy than it is with other beliefs (such as popular conspiracy theories - you'll find remarkable similarities), simply due to the fact that this is religious, and therefore somehow sacrosanct.
Calling for euthanasia is something else since it doesn't really matter why you want to euthanize a group of people, because regardless of the reasons, this is actually a crime. Also why are we talking about euthanizing people in the first place?
Actually wanting to euthanize someone isn't a crime (there is no thought policing in Germany). Calling for it is. If you want to ask why we talk this in the first place, ask Silas.
Also, it's interesting that you seem to ascribe to science a primacy in getting to know what is 'objectively true' and where there actually is a '(objective) disconnect to reality'. I come to find people that do so quite ignorant of other approaches to reality, approaches that actually have a longer history and work for more people practically.
Believe me it is quite difficult to call people out on the blind spots in regard to secular world views based on naturalism and scientism. Nowadays science is quite often taken to be as sacrosanct by people in the internetcommunity as they accuse the religions of trying to maintain themselves by 'blasphemy laws'.
While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.
Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.
In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.
-
I havent read all comments in this thread so I just Leroy Jenkins into this thread.
While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.
About "are much more open to debate and critique." Do you have a link for? I mean really?* Sorry Mithra. I have to tell you .... you are wrong. So I re-word your comment: "While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are AS SHITTY AS those followers of naturalistic scientism.****
Here I have to go off topic. Me personally I see it like Fredrick the great: Religion ist ein Aberglaube/religion is a superstition. Which those not mean this superstition is not politically useful. :D
For him was it easy to be religious tolerant, because he believed in none of them, so there is no ranking or fostering between those religions (Lutheran, catholic, etc..). And thats how I see it too. Iam so far away of those religions, that I even dont understand most of them.** Secondly as Fredrick mention, religion can be useful. And who am I, that I would go "atheist on their ass"? Iam far to much an non-Tim-Tebow, that I see it my mission in life to fix this problem. :P
He stated this in a talkshow, where he claimed that belief in God is a delusion and a dangerous one at that (he said both quite publicly in The God Delusion and The Root of All Evil). Asked what should be done with theists that don't want to give up on their 'delusion' he said something along the lines of (I paraphrase): As they are a potential dangerous to society, they should be placed in psychiatric institution and treated for their delusion there. Anyhow, his characterisation of theism as 'dangerous delusion' really does implicate such a treatment already.
That said, I'll try to dig up that talkshow for you. I follow him as he think he's a good educater of the general public about scince - although unfortunately he does that less and less - and simply a horrible example of a scientist thinking that he's more elegible to talk about philosophy (of religion) and theology then philosophers and scientists. Still, I'm not doing an index of what he said nor am I aiming to build an archive of Darwkins. So, I might not find it.
He mostly speaks of the dangers of religions. Dangers which still exist like, doomsday-predictions***, destruction of knowledge, human mutilation, exclusion or limitation of people, selection of rights and duties etc.... Which I have to say is a problem. Me personally Iam to much of an egalitarist and economist that I buy in such things (thats why I always have those skin tickling when someone is a elitist, racist, or tries to split humans and their rights/choices/tools/braincells/etc... in any shape or form (*looks angrily at the old slavery discussion and thinks: I should had wrote "are you a moron or racist (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3884.msg62381#msg62381)"*).
As for me, as I said above. I see a lot of problems in religions, BUT HERE IS THE THING. There are bigger problems out there. As you and others already mention, hunger, clean water, education, etc... As that I would waist my time on such a thing. This so far below of my to-do-list, that I dont even see the need to rework the german blasphemy laws. I get why Bloodbird puts so much work in it... but again HERE IS ANOTHER THING: Your work should not just be to explain why it is important to you, BUT ALSO WHY IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO ME! And here is where you fail, as well as Bill Maher and Dawkins. I see the problem, that we make a "special snowflake for religion", but it is important? And if the answer for you is yes, fine. But it doesnt mean it is for me yes.
In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.
I reword: "In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger and problems than from some religious nutters."
Moves back into the shadows.....
______________
*I could tell you stories about three white-power-stooges, which spitted choices along of skin colors. And the reaction of those people.... Instate of asking what they have done wrong, they double down on stupid (Example: Gottis post were he tried to insult me with a Adam Sandler movie scene *facepalm*). Ehm... or the other time were two people have try to sell me that Heinrich=Nazi, but not the racist crab which one of them wrote to explain REAL WORLD SLAVERY. Somehow, his/her real-world racism wasnt a problem; It was seen from this person as a non-issue, but a last name Heinrich was a problem? So no, I dont see any positive or negative correlation between: "More open to debate and critique(1)" and "religion and/or Atheism(2)".
** Even my own Lutheran. I mean, I was raise up in a protestant west-german/rhineland enclave, which was more Prussian then the Prussian themselves. Even the local football/soccer was/is named Borussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia). *facepalm*
*** Which always go hand in hand, that worldly laws are dont matter. Which implies even a bigger and more destructive nature of religions, and he even dont mention this. :D
**** A good example would be Thunderf00t (which I love). But even he has his moment where I thing: What? Like his stone tick. Someone which buys a stone for two hundred bucks to fight headaches form his small bed-commode/chest of drawers in his sleep, believes also in a religion. I call it: "The magic stone fix me when I sleep religion". :D
-
I dunno about other countries, but in Germany law professionals define exactly what is defamation and/or slander and application of laws follows these definitions. So, no, it's not a matter of people feeling offended about anything.
So... I don't think that you can reasonably claim that people hide behind these laws if they can't hide behind them to evade debate, really. Also, factually speaking, at least here in Germany, the big religious institutions don't.
Well yes, if you say so... I have no knowledge of how it works in other countries. Even if I have difficulties to believe you.
Trials in justice always implies for both parties to curb the laws to one's own defense and resorting to texts and then proving that said texts fit to your case and prove you in your right. The more vague it is, the more random it becomes, thus why we constantly have law acts and edicts made everyday by the government that gets amendments, again and again, until they either become more precise (the good way) or until they lose all their accuracy for private interests / politics sake.
However I will freely grant that I am rather attached to my country's tradition protecting the right to satirical pieces above all else, and while I would be tempted to say like you that we perfectly do the difference between satire and slander, I will refrain because I perfectly know that it's not, as seen in the Muhammad caricatures case, among other things like censored adds involving negative portrayal of the Church.
And I will also admit that memetic bullying of beliefs, minorities, or else, is worrying, but is unfortunately nothing new.
Actually wanting to euthanize someone isn't a crime (there is no thought policing in Germany). Calling for it is. If you want to ask why we talk this in the first place, ask Silas.
Also, it's interesting that you seem to ascribe to science a primacy in getting to know what is 'objectively true' and where there actually is a '(objective) disconnect to reality'. I come to find people that do so quite ignorant of other approaches to reality, approaches that actually have a longer history and work for more people practically.
Believe me it is quite difficult to call people out on the blind spots in regard to secular world views based on naturalism and scientism. Nowadays science is quite often taken to be as sacrosanct by people in the internetcommunity as they accuse the religions of trying to maintain themselves by 'blasphemy laws'.
While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.
Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.
In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.
Well yeah, followers of Scientism are all fanatics, but in the case of religions, that's just a "fringe".
-
Nicoletta, I do not see the fallacy in ascribing science the primacy when it comes to questions such as 'how old is the Earth'. It is the only method to generate evidence based, verifiable results we have. I do not have to believe in them in the same manner that I do not have to believe in Father Tesla when trying to charge my phone.
-
There's a difference though in ascribing primacy in how to generate results and how to generate truth. Results don't imply truth, they only imply that something works, which doesn't have necessitate truth at all.
There's a difference between methodological and ontological validity.
All that science says is that given the methodological decisions made, the axioms of science (e.g.: inductive logic works), the theories that are presupposed and the data one did gather empirically, that earth is older than 5000 years. It's not saying that Earth is in some absolute sense older than that. Scientific results are not at all verifiable (something that Popper already showed and even worse, since then it has been shown that scientific knowledge isn't even strictly falsifiable), because they depend on the axiomatic basis of Science. For the results (as in scientific theories) to be verifiable, the axioms need to be verifiable. Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works. It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.
It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.
As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).
Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...
-
Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works. It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.
About "Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works."
What the fuck? Really? Where do you have this (I never heared this, and who had teached you this***)? Secondly I have even Popper in my bookshelf.... so I dont mind if you qoute directly even in german for your prove. So that your stuff dont comes out tine air.
It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.
Ehm I havent seen this "overconfidential attitude". But anyway. I bring it down.
- Publius likes sciences, and needs it for his work and live (*Publius rises fist fist to reality that he needs food and water to survive*).
- Publius likes religion, and dont needs it for his work and live (*Publius rises fist fist to reality that he does not needs transcendence to survive*).
Does it mean nobody those need relgion? Of course not. This would be a inductive miss-conclusion. And (this time in this thread), nobody is gone this route. The same miss-conclusion would be also exist if you would now think, that "Publius likes sciences and relgion in the same way." I like them (for different reasons), but for me those two are two circles which only mildly hit/overlap each-other. Secondly: Luckily, my field of study was in macro-economics and political science/npö (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice), so fields where you have 95% math anyway and almost no critical intercept point with religion.
Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...
Publius counts through the thread. Sees only himself, and even that only mildly. Mithra, you forget Lyn is a constructivist, as well as the others. :lol: The only mildly positivistic person here is me, and even I dont see myself as a radical positivist (not as a supporter of scientism). Because... I dont think science needs to answer transcendence questions. SO EASY IS THIS.
Ehm another question for you Mithra (before this thread goes totally off topic :D):
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
________
*** Not that Iam hating. But this is so deep in "Wait-What land", that I have to ask. :lol:
P.S. before you do a Mithra again, as you done in the slavery topic. Please reread again. It helps. Example: Nobody said that scientism should be a substitution for religion. It is again a discussion only in your head, so please dont do a Mithra and answer to things nobody mention.
-
Popper doesn't go the route to show that inductive logic can't be verified, his argument is another as he claims that science is in no need of induction (and works exclusively deductively, which is quite out of touch with reality).
Anyhow: How is induction to be justified? There are in fact several questions here, corresponding to different modes of justification. One very simple mode is to take Hume's dilemma as a challenge, to justify (enumerative) induction one should show that it leads to true or probable conclusions from true premises. It is safe to say that in the absence of further assumptions this problem is and should be insoluble.
(emphasis added by me)
The interesting point is that there is a logically symmetric problem with deduction, as pointed out e.g. by Susan Haack in her article "The Justification of Deduction" (Mind New Series, Vol. 85, No. 337 (Jan., 1976), pp. 112-119). So Popper isn't getting around the problem there either.
As to who is in favour of science as the priviledged source of truth: Look at what Des and Silas wrote for example. Reconsider your counting.
Also, stop this babble about 'doing a Mithra' as if that'd be something to denote something bad, or I'll report you.
-
Popper doesn't go the route to show that inductive logic can't be verified, his argument is another as he claims that science is in no need of induction (and works exclusively deductively, which is quite out of touch with reality).
Anyhow: How is induction to be justified? There are in fact several questions here, corresponding to different modes of justification. One very simple mode is to take Hume's dilemma as a challenge, to justify (enumerative) induction one should show that it leads to true or probable conclusions from true premises. It is safe to say that in the absence of further assumptions this problem is and should be insoluble.
(emphasis added by me)
The interesting point is that there is a logically symmetric problem with deduction, as pointed out e.g. by Susan Haack in her article "The Justification of Deduction" (Mind New Series, Vol. 85, No. 337 (Jan., 1976), pp. 112-119). So Popper isn't getting around the problem there either.
Is this a anti-point for anything I mention? As for your comment "out of touch with reality"... It is your opinion... and you a free to voice your opinion. As for me I dont see him out of touch. I actually think, if you cant deductive explain our inductive findings you should not publish it. I think that way we would have less shitty and ideological political science studies/books. Or science books overall. I could give you hunderds of examples, where people defend their inductive miss-conclussion just it fits their Ideology. For example "the three white power stooges", which most likely has inductive findings of people which fits their ideology. But those it mean all of dark skin color people are this way? Or have less tools/choices/braincells/etc... No, of course not. Thats why I think, it isnt out of touch. Quiet the opposite, it helps people stay in touch. IN OTHER WORDS. If you dont cant explain deductive your inductive findings you should keep your mouth close (I know something that will never happen. :P As Books out of the left field get selled more... and you as author/prof can then visit John Stewart and co...) Something which I mention already two times here (to lazy to search for a link. But Samuel P. Huntington is a prime example for this. But I go off topic.
My questions mark was more into the direction of "Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works."
Ehm another question for you Mithra (before this thread goes totally off topic :D):
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
-
Also, stop this babble about 'doing a Mithra' as if that'd be something to denote something bad, or I'll report you.
Report if you like. But when you dont read a full argument and just the two words which fits your Ideology, I will call out on you, as well as when you do a straw men argument. As for why I call it a Mithra? It is because I always see you doing this. Sadly I dont know why, It is something what only you can explain. But if you like to report me you are free to do so. And I will sit out my well deserved ban as I had done with my comment towards Gotti (to lazy to search the catacombs). ;)
By the way. If the second thing is your problem (the name calling), maybe you should then stop useing terms like "tonygism" or "tonygish", because both have the same brain father. :D
P.S. Dont forget to answer my questions.
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
-
All that science says is that given the methodological decisions made, the axioms of science (e.g.: inductive logic works), the theories that are presupposed and the data one did gather empirically, that earth is older than 5000 years. It's not saying that Earth is in some absolute sense older than that. Scientific results are not at all verifiable (something that Popper already showed and even worse, since then it has been shown that scientific knowledge isn't even strictly falsifiable), because they depend on the axiomatic basis of Science. For the results (as in scientific theories) to be verifiable, the axioms need to be verifiable. Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works. It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.
It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.
As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).
Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...
Correct. You can't claim absolute truth. And I don't think it's been claimed, because absolute truth is for mental masturbation and evangelism. Objective truth might be a better term. Natural sciences make observations and attempt to model them (through mathematics, for example) in a way that allows to use these model to explain and predict the reality. These are, by definition, not precise in the most absolute sense.
However, they are solid enough to not just make predictions, but to also apply them with utmost precision. Despite being grounded in empirical data which is always prone to errors and interpretation, it can't be that faulty that we somehow get errors of the scale of 10^5. So, these principles are by all means quite well understood, or at least described.
You are correct that whenever we look into the past we can not outrule the possibility that something we do not understand happened that produces exactly the results we get while the same principles applied today are yielding perfect results, indicating a deity that makes everything(!), not just one aspect, look like he did nothing, just to screw with us. So that is indeed a possibility.
I can't tell you why there's gravity. I can explain how to model it and what you need to get it, though. I can't tell you why the Earth's exactly at this place either.
-
To be perfectly clear I don't know what to think of such blasphemy laws in Europe. Are we better without, or with them, as long as they protect every belief, and not just religion ? How does one draw the line between the right to satire and the rights of the offended ? The hell if I know, it's pretty much fucked up at both extremes either way.
I loathe some of those in a lot of third world countries, but as already discussed to death in the first pages of this topic, that petition looks ludicrous in that light, and even dangerous and counter productive.
Also, I won't continue to indulge in the current conversation as I do not hold the sufficient philosophical knowledge to do so, and for once do not have the time nor the patience to get more info about it just to be able to follow it as I did countless times already ICly on the IGS. I have always supported the right to religion and spiritual enlightenment if that's what make people happy, even scientists (considering that half of scientists in the world believe in a God). I can't grasp it, I find it utterly alien, silly, like a crutch, whatever you can call it, but I respect it, especially because I am totally devoid of it, and lack it myself. Religion (not organized) can probably offer other kinds of answers to spiritual venues. I of course find it sad to see some zealous atheists unleashing on religious people, especially on the internet, since IRL it's still exactly the opposite in most places. The only thing I see myself IRL are religious traditionalists that fight against progress and post modernism, and thus, are opposed to myself on the political landscape. However, I will never make the mistake to put them in the same basket with all believers of the world.
If some Scientist elite is these days controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past, why, maybe ? I don't see that, I can't verify that, and I honestly no sign of it. I just see science progressing everyday and bringing new things on the table.
As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old. I couldn't care less about old religious answers on the matter. They have become obsolete. Someday probably, our own science of today will be proven obsolete too.
-
As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.
It is actually related to the radioactive decay of Uranium to Lead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating).
Carbon dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating) apparently does not work on materials more than a few tens of thousand years old.
If some Scientist elite is these days controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past, why, maybe ? I don't see that, I can't verify that, and I honestly no sign of it. I just see science progressing everyday and bringing new things on the table.
There could be an argument that peer-reviewed scientific literature is controlled by the editors of prominent scientific journals, like Nature (http://www.nature.com/), Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/journals).
This is actually an argument by the political right in the United States with regards to both evolution and climate change. In the case of climate change, they assert a politically-based conspiracy exists to shackle the economy and feed money to unprofitable alternative energy companies (who in turn donate to their opponents political campaigns).
One of the biggest hurdles is reading any of the articles really requires an understanding of the jargon used. Generally, the authors do not write the articles for general consumption, thus common definitions of words like proof, theory, etc, are misinterpreted by the layman (http://io9.com/10-scientific-ideas-that-scientists-wish-you-would-stop-1591309822)*.
*Sadly, the use of layman here implies a relationship similar to that of religious institutions, in which trained experts (the clergy) is separate from the rest of the population.
So, like religion before it, a literate general population is necessary to break the holds of elites or powerful institutions on understanding the material provided. In the case of western religion, this occurred with the printing press, renaissance, localization of the Bible, etc - today there are numerous versions of Christianity, to include those with personal beliefs/interpretations since the clergy no longer has a monopoly on reading and interpreting the Bible.
In the case of science, either (1) the scientific community must work to reduce the presence of jargon in their work or (2) the general populous must be educated to be scientifically literate. The first case is likely the most straight-forward, since the population that needs to change its thought processes is smaller. Scientist must make the conscious effort to become communicators and not become a new clergy.
An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.
-
As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.
Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?
What you really say here is that you trust science infinitely more than a counting of days in the bible in regard to the age of Earth. And while I think that is reasonable, I don't see how it is the option we need to embrace by necessity.
Also, I never said a scientist elite is 'controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past'. There is a hughe difference between a scientist and someone subscribing to Scientism. A scientist is someone doing science, which only implies that he has a methodological dedication to naturalism and therefore atheism. This is purely methodological, though. Someone subscribing to Scientism is of the opinion that Scientism is what can tell you about everything and that every question about things outside of the scope of science are meaningless and that the methodological dedication of science to naturalism therefore needs to be extended to an ontological naturalism of the type that only what science can show to be, exists.
And yes, those people would like to monopolize (I didn't say they did that already) determining what the meaning of all is and what truth is in their hands. Because they really think that they have figured it out. It's not malevolence, I think, but ignorance of their own ignorance. As Hannah Arendt said: The shocking truth about people that commit evil deeds is their mediocrity rather than that they are beasts soaked in evil to begin with. They are everyday men, just 'doing their job', as they understand it. And those people think that it is their job, as scientists, to determine what is true and the meaning of something.
I myself was - not subject,as I didn't say that I'm believeing in a 'God of the philosophers' but - witness to this: A Professor of mine told me that religious people can't be scientists and that they wouldn't take people who're religious for their PhDs.
That said, I agree with Orange: Scientist must make the conscious effort to become communicators and not become a new [medieval] clergy. (And I think the role of communicator is one that clergy befits as well.) There is the problem of a quite similar relationship of scientist to 'laymen' like with the medieval church. Alas, I am sceptic in regard to approach (1), as jargon does fill an essential role in science, I don't think it's reducible to 'everyday language', else no one would have much of a problem to a) understand the equasions of quantum physics in the first place and b) there wouldn't have been produced so many differing interpretations. The language of mathmatics seems better suited to express the aspects of nature physics describes there, than our everyday language.
Educating everyone to be scientifically literate isn't such an easy thing either. I don't think that one should be forcing this on people. Also, it would be quite like medieval theologians forcing everyone into studying theology at medieval universities... And that's leaving aside the question whether people actually all have the mental capacity to understand, say quantum physics on the level of a physics student (not to say graduate).
As to peer review: In the middle ages there was an institution founded to review clergy internally, just like scientists are reviewing scientists nowadays. Of course it has played a role in history of which mainly the grim parts resound in our collective memory, I daresay. Or who thinks the Inquisition was a good thing?
I myself was peer reviewed in my scientific writing and my 'peer' told me that I'd have to remove all (P.S.: Obviously overstating. Rather all the 'cutting edge math' diversity continua) the maths from my article, as no-one in said scientific community would understand such modern statistics anyway. Also, if I'd stick to the traditional descriptors, they'd show quite nicely what we were funded to show...
-
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
Didn't say there should. If you read what I wrote I said that this isn't what modern 'blasphemy laws' are about. If you have problems with my english I'm sorry, it's not my first langage. If you want I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant.
-
I myself was peer reviewed in my scientific writing and my 'peer' told me that I'd have to remove all the maths from my article, as no-one in said scientific community would understand such modern statistics anyway. Also, if I'd stick to the traditional descriptors, they'd show quite nicely what we were funded to show...
What have you wrote.... and what human (out of which field) said you should take out the math and statistic? Not that Im hating just curious. :lol:
Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works.
A old question from ..... Where did you get this line? or Idea?
I myself was - not subject,as I didn't say that I'm believeing in a 'God of the philosophers' but - witness to this: A Professor of mine told me that religious people can't be scientists and that they wouldn't take people who're religious for their PhDs.
This is so out of the left field that I cant believe this. Not that Iam hating but from which field was the guy? :lol:
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
Didn't say there should. If you read what I wrote I said that this isn't what modern 'blasphemy laws' are about. If you have problems with my english I'm sorry, it's not my first langage. If you want I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant.
What ever you like... As I said I just Leroy Jenkins in to see if I see someone had done some errors again. :lol: Because you have a huge tendency to do inductive conclusions, as well as split of humans/choices/Braincells/tools/etc.... Like ones where you try to sell me that "officer of the army in the air/aka pilots are somehow special humans (to lazy to search for the link)... or the slavery discussion where you split choice along skin colors (to lazy to search for a link) or above about "much more open to debate and critique"... as I said in the slavery topic it lets my skin tickling as well as I have brought there the bad joke: That I have to apologize to Rebecca Black and here "friday" song after hearing "Hot Problems" from Double Take. The same feeling have I often here on this forum, that I have to apologize to TonyG, because most of the stuff here is even worse. And you are one of those persons (next to Gotti and Hellgremlin) which I thought, and still think is worse then tongy´s stuff. After that it got even worse. Later, where I thought (and still think) wait, those this "white-power-fanboy or moron"*** try to sell that Heinrich=Nazi?
As for "I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant." Nah... just post it here... I dont mind it if it is german... you can add a transcript in english if you so deeply care. Because I have to say.... As I already mention above.... That Iam still not sell on the whole Idea that this topic should be important to ME, neither from Bloodbird or you. As I mention above Bloodbird failded as "missionary" for me (as well as many others. In science: Darwkin or entertainment: Bill Maher). Sadly you too... but you dont need to answer if your goal isnt "missonary". :D
______
***This question is still open.
-
Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?
Likelihood might've been a better word. But why is it higher? Because if the Earth is 5000 years old all the methods used to determine the Earth age have to be faulty, and if they're faulty, even more has to be faulty, too. Since this does not seem to be the case (Just imagine what errors of this scale would mean to any application that just utilizes radioactive decay) it's the magic oddity that I've described earlier. There's an effect that just distorts these measurements that contradict the teaching of creation/genesis. And just that. Once applied in the here and now to make your hardware work on more than just ants it's completely legit.
-
Since when does 'does not seem to be the case' get treated as 'is not the case'? Yah, the young world creationist need to assume that God created a world in a way that fools human reason, but really, you can't rule that out by saying 'but things work now'.
I rather think that it's unreasonable that a reasonable God created a world like that. It'd also be rather cruel. As Christianity teaches that God is reasonable (logos rather than a-logikos) and loving rather then neeedlessly cruel the position that young earth creationists hold seems self-defeating.
Much better argument against them than just stamping your feet and saying "but that would mean that in regards to the past all our physics wouldn't work", because the YEC would just nod and say: "Exactly."
-
As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.
Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?
What you really say here is that you trust science infinitely more than a counting of days in the bible in regard to the age of Earth. And while I think that is reasonable, I don't see how it is the option we need to embrace by necessity.
No, what I really say here is that it is reasonable to me. Likelihood was probably a better term indeed.
I never said anywhere that it has to be embraced by necessity. And if you don't embrace it, what then ?
Honestly I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by that remark, or what is your point, as you probably perfectly understood what I meant in the first place. I couldn't care less if God is reasonable or not in YEC world. I am not one, and am also not trying to tell them that they are wrong. I will leave it to you since you seem to know how to handle them.
Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?
Edit :
Also, I never said a scientist elite is 'controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past'.
You wrote above :
Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.
As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).
So maybe I understood something wrong, I don't know. Apologies for that if that's the case.
-
Don't think that likelyhood captures it either, after all a YEC says that God arranged everything so that it seems to science as it does. You can't really assess such a view by assigning likelyhood or probability, as it's making the claim that there should be no change in the empirical data at all.
Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?
Just saying, humankind lived not so badly without science for the vast majority of it's history and all of it's pre-history. I think it should be allowed to fundamentally question science, but then it's quite ingrained into many people nowadays that "if we start to put in question scientific conclusions... then what ?". Well, what then? The world certainly won't perish and the sun will come up regardless of whether we think the earth turns or the sun travels around earth.
Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)
-
I don't want to get modded, but it seems to me that this is a bit silly. All of this is stupid, if intelligently so. At least, from my perspective.
I don't mean that we should invade anyone who doesn't share our beliefs. Practically, we don't have the money. Ideologically, invasion fails to transmit memes. I should have thought that this were obvious. But then, given what has happened, perhaps not.
But why should I live in a country where what I think is criminalized if I speak it? Therefore, I am anti-blasphemy laws. And, moreover, I do not wish to die or to be imprisoned because of what I think - therefore, why give to, and thus strengthen, those with anti-blasphemy laws?
To me, human dignity is an illusion. I have worked in a lot of blue-collar occupations. It seems to me that "human dignity" does not exist, save as something for the middle and upper classes to give as a reason to penalize disagreement with their beliefs. I may be biased, but, even as a member of those classes now, their precious idealization of human ideologies seems, frankly, without any real foundation.
Here is reality: Feed. Fuck. Survive. We grew out of that. Ideas brought us out of that. But why grant special status to any of them?
Well. I can't speak except as a former fundamentalist Christian and a blue collar - into middle class - worker. It seems to me that that is an excellent qualification for speaking to the subject, but I'm sure I can be found wrong in some detail. Yet, as the above, I can say that what I really wanted was to know what was true, and what worked.
You see, even as a conservative fundamentalist Christian in the U.S., I wanted to know what was true. What was real. By investigating reality, I became an atheist. I do not resent this, even if it is harder, because I want to know what is closer to reality. As such, I am against anything which would have kept me from knowing the truth.
And, more so, I do think that there is a truth. Either we are descended from ape-precursors, or we aren't. Either the earth is 6-8,000 years old, or it isn't. In either case, what we can expect is different. I want to be ready for what will happen, to be able to be ready for the next virus, the next volcanic explosion, the next earthquake.
As such, what is true is that which corresponds to reality, to what has happened and will happen. And, in deference to that, what should anyone care about "special" or "fundamental" beliefs? What matters is what will benefit or destroy us, and that is the province of the study of reality, or, if you will, science. What works.
I oppose limiting free speech not because I am without regard to the bad things people might say, but because I think there must always be a forum for even just one person to speak what corresponds to reality.
-
Since when does 'does not seem to be the case' get treated as 'is not the case'? Yah, the young world creationist need to assume that God created a world in a way that fools human reason, but really, you can't rule that out by saying 'but things work now'.
I rather think that it's unreasonable that a reasonable God created a world like that. It'd also be rather cruel. As Christianity teaches that God is reasonable (logos rather than a-logikos) and loving rather then neeedlessly cruel the position that young earth creationists hold seems self-defeating.
Much better argument against them than just stamping your feet and saying "but that would mean that in regards to the past all our physics wouldn't work", because the YEC would just nod and say: "Exactly."
Essentially showcasing that you can't argue against dogmatic beliefs, which is a core criticism of organized or instituted religion - the teaching said so. If those teachings would change this would not be a problem, but it's been some time since a prophet made a showing to deliver the word of god, and even interpretation as done by theologians is moving very, very slowly. Additionally, you can not prove or disprove these dogmatic foundations.
Regarding these arguments pro and con, the solution that requires the least assumptions should always be the favorite one. Additionally, trying to explain something simple with something even more compex is problematic, too.
Some people think they can use the same dogmatic approach to science, but they are not better either, and usually not scientists. I wouldn't trust someone who boasts that he has the answer to everything. The way the science community (orange has highlighted legitimate criticism on this) works, however, is on entirely different basises. You publish your information in a way that makes it possible for everyone to try and reproduce your findings. If they can't, they're going to call you out on it. Now, it's not simple to just heat up your 20km particle accelerator in the backyard to doublecheck some CERN experiments, but we're not talking about this, we're talking about the most fundamental principles.
Also we're not living badly today. Why improve things for tomorrow when we kinda get along, eh?
-
Essentially showcasing that you can't argue against dogmatic beliefs, which is a core criticism of organized or instituted religion - the teaching said so.
No,n it shows that you can't argue against someone pulling something into questiontion by citing what he pulls into question. Of course I can argue with them in a lot of differing ways.
The way the science community (orange has highlighted legitimate criticism on this) works, however, is on entirely different basises. You publish your information in a way that makes it possible for everyone to try and reproduce your findings. If they can't, they're going to call you out on it.
As Orange already pointed out, this everyone you speak about is a limited number of people who're experts on this, usually confined to a pretty close field. The vast majority of humankind has neither the resources (buying access to scientific literature is quite expensive, nor the education or access to said eeducation necessary to do so...
Also we're not living badly today. Why improve things for tomorrow when we kinda get along, eh?
Living conditions didn't necessarily improve through applied science. Applied science is one of the main reasons for the pollution of our environment, just to pick one thing out. On the other hand living conditions are hard to measure at all. Of course if you define living quality as 'benefitting from the fruits of modern science' then you can do easily show that science improved living quality...
But I think that the advancements of the craft of shoemaking are quite real even before there entered science into that. I also think it improved life. Science isn't the only thing that can miraculously improve our life. Actually, what improves our lives is not science in itself, but how we choose to apply the results of science.
@Vikarion: Science works. That doesn't mean that it corresponds to reality though in any other way than that it works in the way it does. Actually, science is oftentimes counterfactual. E.g. Niels Bohr did know exactly that his model of the atom didn't correspond to reality even before he published it. He did so because it worked anyway to explain the energy of electrons circling the atomic core (which they aren't really circling, as I'm sure you know). So, science oftentimes does not correspond to reality and quite often does so in many ways knowingly.
-
@Vikarion: Science works. That doesn't mean that it corresponds to reality though in any other way than that it works in the way it does. Actually, science is oftentimes counterfactual. E.g. Niels Bohr did know exactly that his model of the atom didn't correspond to reality even before he published it. He did so because it worked anyway to explain the energy of electrons circling the atomic core. So, science oftentimes does not correspond to reality and quite often does so in many ways knowingly.
Sorry to call you out again. But this is not true. Maybe you can find a better example.... By the way uncertainty doesnt falsfy science... as Mia showed in here book about the new expermentalism. So If someone can mathematical inductive (which is deductive) prove his point, then it is also valid. See modern theoretical physics, neue politisch ökonomie, and many others etc...
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
Didn't say there should. If you read what I wrote I said that this isn't what modern 'blasphemy laws' are about.
So what they are about? Please tell me. And dont come me, with they wouldnt be protected without one.... the normal Strafgesetzbuch does still apply to and for every person. So again: What they are about?
-
Don't think that likelyhood captures it either, after all a YEC says that God arranged everything so that it seems to science as it does. You can't really assess such a view by assigning likelyhood or probability, as it's making the claim that there should be no change in the empirical data at all.
Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?
Just saying, humankind lived not so badly without science for the vast majority of it's history and all of it's pre-history. I think it should be allowed to fundamentally question science, but then it's quite ingrained into many people nowadays that "if we start to put in question scientific conclusions... then what ?". Well, what then? The world certainly won't perish and the sun will come up regardless of whether we think the earth turns or the sun travels around earth.
Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)
Having being a science student, here's what I will say about the reluctance to question science: Are you bloody serious?
Listen, science is a tool to help us understand the universe. It is a human construct, filled with human flaws. All knowledge drawn from science is true until proven otherwise. And how are you going to prove that a scientific fact is false or flawed if you do not question it? Doubt and skepticism is important for science, it helps science grow. It helps us, scientists and layperson and otherwise, to identify problems in our hypothesis and our theories and refine our experiments, come up with new, hopefully more accurate hypothesis, which will in turn improve our understanding of the universe.
This is what science is about! It's not a religion, it's a tool for understanding and enlightenment, and like all tools, it is not perfect and can always be improved!
-
I think there in lies a core component of the issue. When a person questions a scientific conclusion, many see it as questioning the scientific process itself, not just the conclusion.
Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)
Except the successful plumber, mechanic, builder, and farmer tend to use the scientific process in many ways. A plumber uses tools, improved by physics and chemistry. A mechanic establishes a hypothesis, attempts to fix it, and if it does not work, attempts a new hypothesis and fix (the scientific process). A builder does their work based on either designs by engineers and architects or the success and failures of past builders (each construction an experiment). A farmer applies many of these same techniques.
The very things that allow civilization, even ancient civilization to exist, represent the unintentional application the basic scientific process. Modern civilization fails to exists without the focused application of the scientific processes.
-
If a plumber, a mechanic anda builder as well as a farmer are scientists, then suddenly everything is science. I mean, really... <,< If it's successful, it's science? There's a bit more to science then trial and error until it works.
Also, yes, the scientist may question a scientific conclusion, but that's not questioning science or the scientific process in itself. Scientists are good sceptics, unless it's about fundamentally questioning what they're doing.
-
Applied science has made our existance possible. While a lot of new problems have arisen and undoubtedly will arise in the years to come the benefits are so tremendous in every single aspect of life that I'm pretty stunned how you can discard it. Furthermore, Rapture aside, it is the only tool available that has the potential to solve issues such as feeding a massive population, providing clean energy for future generations and continue to extend our lifespans in the eternal struggle against disease. You would've gotten cancer 2000 years ago, too, if you'd been lucky enough to make it to 40.
I mean, brave new world and all, every tool can and will be abused, but sheesh.
Also everyone can be a scientist, obviously, and prior to modern universities we had them, too, like that dude who spottedthat flint can spark similar to that burning stuff, and decided to keep trying ( bet he tried different rocks, too).
Your plumber utilizes science. The simple metal tube where water runs through ain't so funny. Ask people who've lived in the 50/60s about freezing and bursting pipes. Or rust in the plumbing.
The Bohr example is perfect, because it shows the process. It refined the Rutherford model in some key points while being unable to solve the problem that the electron should tumble into the core, given classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics managed to mathematically solve this ( in such a theoretical way that your memory sticks or flash cards work ). There are still a lot of unknowns, classical and qm aren't linked yet, but the process refines it. And explains/models successfully so much that it seems to be much closer to our reality than other theories/beliefs that do explain nothing else.
-
In the spirit of this thread, I think I'm going to start calling my plumber "Pipe Sorcerer".
Seems to convey the appropriate mystique.
-
Don't think that likelyhood captures it either, after all a YEC says that God arranged everything so that it seems to science as it does. You can't really assess such a view by assigning likelyhood or probability, as it's making the claim that there should be no change in the empirical data at all.
Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?
Just saying, humankind lived not so badly without science for the vast majority of it's history and all of it's pre-history. I think it should be allowed to fundamentally question science, but then it's quite ingrained into many people nowadays that "if we start to put in question scientific conclusions... then what ?". Well, what then? The world certainly won't perish and the sun will come up regardless of whether we think the earth turns or the sun travels around earth.
Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)
Oh for the... That's not what I said at all again. I guess I suck at explaining what I want to explain.
Don't bother.
Not even sure where and when YEC came into the discussion and what for...
So yes, it's good to be aware that science is not the absolute Truth. So yeah, what then again ? I'm aware of it. I'm still trying to figure out what is the point in pointing that out.
Are you telling me that you just dismiss science conclusions just because well, it's probably not the absolute truth, or doesn't perfectly match it after all ? And if not, what is your damn point ?
-
In the spirit of this thread, I think I'm going to start calling my plumber "Pipe Sorcerer".
Seems to convey the appropriate mystique.
Having been around Deadrow too long, Pipe Sorcerer doesn't convey the image of an individual given to the laudable trade that is ensuring effective water supply in the household. Though occasionally the individual bestowed with such a title may be dressed as a plumber, pursuing an equally virtuous, but unrelated, discipline of vital import to society.
-
In the spirit of this thread, I think I'm going to start calling my plumber "Pipe Sorcerer".
Seems to convey the appropriate mystique.
Having been around Deadrow too long, Pipe Sorcerer doesn't convey the image of an individual given to the laudable trade that is ensuring effective water supply in the household. Though occasionally the individual bestowed with such a title may be dressed as a plumber, pursuing an equally virtuous, but unrelated, discipline of vital import to society.
Let's call them 'Hydromancers'. Sounds more dignified. Behold my magic spanner! With it I ensure smooth passage!
-
In the spirit of this thread, I think I'm going to start calling my plumber "Pipe Sorcerer".
Seems to convey the appropriate mystique.
Having been around Deadrow too long, Pipe Sorcerer doesn't convey the image of an individual given to the laudable trade that is ensuring effective water supply in the household. Though occasionally the individual bestowed with such a title may be dressed as a plumber, pursuing an equally virtuous, but unrelated, discipline of vital import to society.
Let's call them 'Hydromancers'. Sounds more dignified. Behold my magic spanner! With it I ensure smooth passage!
(http://www.plumbmagicllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Plumb-Magic-LLC-Official-Logo-large.png)
Though light hearted, this should convey a semi-serious point.
-
In the spirit of this thread, I think I'm going to start calling my plumber "Pipe Sorcerer".
Seems to convey the appropriate mystique.
Having been around Deadrow too long, Pipe Sorcerer doesn't convey the image of an individual given to the laudable trade that is ensuring effective water supply in the household. Though occasionally the individual bestowed with such a title may be dressed as a plumber, pursuing an equally virtuous, but unrelated, discipline of vital import to society.
Let's call them 'Hydromancers'. Sounds more dignified. Behold my magic spanner! With it I ensure smooth passage!
(http://www.plumbmagicllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Plumb-Magic-LLC-Official-Logo-large.png)
Though light hearted, this should convey a semi-serious point.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable to magic."
This tread has been seriously derailed at this point. I guess I should be happy with how long it too to get this bad, and forgive what makes me less happy about the at-times absurd counter-arguments to why abolishing blasphemy laws is a good idea.
People have literally said in this tread that the middle east has issue with poverty and poor infrastructure and suffering and so on, and this somehow means we (westerners) should not care about blasphemy laws and their effects because... somehow poverty etc. excuse religious practices that get's people persecuted oppressed and killed, depending on location and example?
Given more time later today or tomorrow I'll dig deeper and more specifically into examples from this tread, but so far, I got to say, I don't get some of the arguments against abolishing blasphemy laws at all. To me it seems many argue we should not bother to fix X issue because many that are affected by X issue have Y issue to deal with too. Completely besides the point, but we will see, perhaps I am missing something.
-
Just saying, humankind lived not so badly without science for the vast majority of it's history and all of it's pre-history. I think it should be allowed to fundamentally question science, but then it's quite ingrained into many people nowadays that "if we start to put in question scientific conclusions... then what ?". Well, what then? The world certainly won't perish and the sun will come up regardless of whether we think the earth turns or the sun travels around earth.
Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)
I must assume you are being sarcastic?
You are welcome to return to that brutal time of rampant disease, no medicine, starvation, extreme levels of violence as a % of population, short life spans with brutal endings, superstitious and violent tribes, and fear and ignorance of the world around us.
Humankind has never been more peaceful and our lives so easy. It is not a debate, for most of our history as a species life was short, terrifying, violent, and miserable.
The invisible sky wizard didn't give mankind fire, and spears, and tools to tame his environment. We did that, and it is a great disservice to our ancestors who bled and died and fought against a cruel world to think otherwise.
-
Religion has done some great things we must admit, but only as an agent of social control in a simpler and superstitious time. Keeping people in line, social order, and yes much science.
Those days are quickly ending, and I can't wait until we collectively break those superstitious shackles that divide us and keep many ignorant and scared.
-
Religion has done some great things we must admit, but only as an agent of social control in a simpler and superstitious time. Keeping people in line, social order, and yes much science.
Those days are quickly ending, and I can't wait until we collectively break those superstitious shackles that divide us and keep many ignorant and scared.
(http://www.lawolfe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/fb-like-button.jpg)
-
When thousands of scientists start murdering civilians, women, and children over who can calculate PI further, or has the more accurate climate models, I'll start rethinking my 'faith.'
In the mean time I'll keep watching and reading the history of Sunni kill Shia, Hindu kill Muslim, Jew kill Muslim, Protestant kill Catholic, Protestant kill Wiccan, Catholic kill scientists (burning alive, very classy), Catholic kill Jew, Christian kill Native American.. Are we seeing a pattern?
-
Religion was blending philosophy and science nicely. Then, as science found more and more contradicting evidence this shifted. Today, I do not think we need religion for progress, especially as it often contains elements that are decisively counter-progress, nor do we need it for philosophy or the much more important aspect of it: Ethics, which is vitally important, now as ever.
Also Hydromancer is pretty sick. I'm digging it. He's channeling to Mother Pipe.
-
When thousands of scientists start murdering civilians, women, and children over who can calculate PI further, or has the more accurate climate models, I'll start rethinking my 'faith.'
In the mean time I'll keep watching and reading the history of Sunni kill Shia, Hindu kill Muslim, Jew kill Muslim, Protestant kill Catholic, Protestant kill Wiccan, Catholic kill scientists (burning alive, very classy), Catholic kill Jew, Christian kill Native American.. Are we seeing a pattern?
I'll help, both then and now:
Murdering of civilians, women and children by Nazi Scientists:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005168
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
On using the "other" for scientific ends by American medical researchers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
Oh.. and on climate models, given the increasingly decreasing tenor of the debate:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2014/02/23/ny-times-cartoon-suggests-climate-change-deniers-should-be-stabbed-dea
Obviously given the vitirole being thrown about, both science and religion in the past - and now - can be abused to bring crippling abuses and untold suffering; both can also bring meaning and improvement, and structure to lives. In simplistic terms, science can explain the "how," but can't necessarily explain the "why" and vice versa.
So when do you want to have tea and discuss rethinking 'faith' and the fact that both faith and science can co-exist and may actually be needed so the human race can breathe with both lungs, so to speak.
-
People have literally said in this tread that the middle east has issue with poverty and poor infrastructure and suffering and so on, and this somehow means we (westerners) should not care about blasphemy laws and their effects because... somehow poverty etc. excuse religious practices that get's people persecuted oppressed and killed, depending on location and example?
Given more time later today or tomorrow I'll dig deeper and more specifically into examples from this tread, but so far, I got to say, I don't get some of the arguments against abolishing blasphemy laws at all. To me it seems many argue we should not bother to fix X issue because many that are affected by X issue have Y issue to deal with too. Completely besides the point, but we will see, perhaps I am missing something.
Oh but I care. Besides making me sad i'm also sad that you didn't seem to consider our points too. Your petition in the case of non western states will just add oil on fire and achieve absolutely nothing, like the US literally smashing Irak into pieces to bring them democracy and freedom, one recent example among many other of the same magnitude done by various western countries in the name of ideals, which are only a mean to extend one's own sphere of influence and is basically about POWER; and how a dominating superpower imposes its views.
Well be our guest, take up arms and go smash another country with horrible religious laws in the name of human rights. Even with your heart at the right place, it will not be very different from the good civilized old colonial empire bringing civilization to the locals by force. See how they react to that, and see if they see you as a liberator, or as an invader with alien ideals. Eventually with a bit of patiences and centuries, and quite an amount of blood, they might start to think like you. Go Reclaim the hell out of their souls.
But more to the point, they will look at your petition, and laugh at you, most probably.
We tend to believe that those cultures are actually oppressed and only ask that we show the Truth to their leaders so that we can free them of their misery. Sorry to disappoint, they just see your culture as repulsive and for some of you might also hate you. They care about their religious laws, besides a few minorities and the "few" (few compared to the majority) victims they cause.
Why do you think we see counter insurgencies leaded by people like Putin now that the US empire of freedom and democracy - the greater Storytelling ever in history - is declining ? Maybe it would be best to open our eyes and notice that the western world - not even the western world as a whole; just a post modern elite - is definitely not the majority to think like that ? We are just enjoying a disproportionate influence of our ideals mostly due to our position of POWER in the world. And it might not last long.
In the mean time I'll keep watching and reading the history of Sunni kill Shia, Hindu kill Muslim, Jew kill Muslim, Protestant kill Catholic, Protestant kill Wiccan, Catholic kill scientists (burning alive, very classy), Catholic kill Jew, Christian kill Native American.. Are we seeing a pattern?
Well yes, though, I am definitely not sure how Christian kill Native American ? Wasn't it not more a matter of expansionism, land grabbing, and more importantly, railroad companies ? Was religion really involved in native american history ?
-
That cartoon is the best proof. We could stop there.
But to give a more profound example: Are you certain that these violations of ethics have been because science said so - the results of these nazi tests are sadly useful (and used) to this day without question - or because the people whose health has been violated have been labelled as worth less than others, either through ideology or through the sad fact that these have been instituded in death camps (They weren't called like this for the hangovers).
If your point was that there are misguided humans out there I can wholeheartedly agree. There is always someone misappropriating a cause, or going way, way beyond what is acceptable in the pursuit of 'noble' goals. However it should be quite trivial to come up with a list that is remarkably bigger if you want to know people who have harmed others because of religious motives or incitement through religious organisations, not counting the aforementioned misappropriation, which obviously happened/happens, too.
The elemental position in Silas's statement was murdering people over [scientific issue]. Because the first time who clubbed someone to death with a specially engineered murderclub was using science to be better than Ogh from the valley nearby.
-
When thousands of scientists start murdering civilians, women, and children over who can calculate PI further, or has the more accurate climate models, I'll start rethinking my 'faith.'
In the mean time I'll keep watching and reading the history of Sunni kill Shia, Hindu kill Muslim, Jew kill Muslim, Protestant kill Catholic, Protestant kill Wiccan, Catholic kill scientists (burning alive, very classy), Catholic kill Jew, Christian kill Native American.. Are we seeing a pattern?
I'll help, both then and now:
Murdering of civilians, women and children by Nazi Scientists:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005168
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
On using the "other" for scientific ends by American medical researchers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
Oh.. and on climate models, given the increasingly decreasing tenor of the debate:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2014/02/23/ny-times-cartoon-suggests-climate-change-deniers-should-be-stabbed-dea
Obviously given the vitirole being thrown about, both science and religion in the past - and now - can be abused to bring crippling abuses and untold suffering; both can also bring meaning and improvement, and structure to lives. In simplistic terms, science can explain the "how," but can't necessarily explain the "why" and vice versa.
So when do you want to have tea and discuss rethinking 'faith' and the fact that both faith and science can co-exist and may actually be needed so the human race can breathe with both lungs, so to speak.
Ah yes, I was waiting for the Nazi reference. Many were certainly athiests, and they killed many millions of people, absolutely no denying that.
That's a small drop in the bucket over a 15 year period compared to the extend of human suffering at the hands of religious extremists. Not even in the same ballpark comparison.
American scientists certainly did awful, ghastly things as well to many minority groups, purposly infecting african americans with syphilis, radiation, and worse in gruesome experiments.
Again, a few thousand cases over what, a few decades? Suffering in the twisted service of the advancement of some terrible researchers is still in the tiniest first steps of the kiddie pool, the religious persecution deep end of the pool has a few thousand years and many many millions more bodies in it.
Martin Luther posts a little piece of parchment on a church door the Pope doesn't like and millions of people get butchered for hundreds of years?
Native Americans non-plussed about those zany Spanish priests on their shores. Time for feet-choppin' and mass conversions!
That woman in town that no one likes? She's a witch. Burn her alive as a lesson to the other women to shut up.
You can't really compare the scale of suffering of the two, even with nazi murderers on one end of the scale.
Now they can certainly co-exist peacefully, and they do for millions of people who aren't zealots on either end. The majority.
But only one has a repeated track record of being 'anti' advancement. Keeping women in their place. Keeping knowledge down. Keeping the 'other' down.
People had to risk their very lives to say something as simple as 'the earth moves around the sun' under repressive theocracies.
-
Well yes, though, I am definitely not sure how Christian kill Native American ? Wasn't it not more a matter of expansionism, land grabbing, and more importantly, railroad companies ? Was religion really involved in native american history ?
The Spaniards went full Amarr on the indigenous peoples of the Americas, killing millions, raping and pillaging, and utterly destroying their societies. The priests gave them a pass as God's will, and blank cheques to murder any who would not convert.
-
I can't deny that science has given mankind ever more efficient and ghastly tools for killing in larger and larger numbers (hello swords, hello guns, hello nuclear bombs), but those are just better and better tools, usually in the service of my god is the one true god. Convert or die.
-
Well yes, though, I am definitely not sure how Christian kill Native American ? Wasn't it not more a matter of expansionism, land grabbing, and more importantly, railroad companies ? Was religion really involved in native american history ?
The Spaniards went full Amarr on the indigenous peoples of the Americas, killing millions, raping and pillaging, and utterly destroying their societies. The priests gave them a pass as God's will, and blank cheques to murder any who would not convert.
Sadly enough human nature being what it is, the greedy Spaniards listened to what they wanted to and ignore what was inconvenient to their profit motive and denigration of the other, including the parts of religion that were inconvenient.
The following condemnation of slavery was not from Pope Franchis I, or even a more "modern" pope but Pope Paul III who issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote:
...The exalted God loved the human race so much that He created man in such a condition that he was not only a sharer in good as are other creatures, but also that he would be able to reach and see face to face the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good... Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He (Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians...be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals... by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - ...should not be deprived of their liberty... Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery... [Ibid., pp.79-81 with original critical Latin text]
Pope Paul not only condemned the slavery of Indians but also "all other peoples." In his phrase "unheard of before now", he seems to see a difference between this new form of slavery (i.e. racial slavery) and the ancient forms of just-title slavery. Unfortunately, the kings of portugal and spain disregarded that as well as the bulls from Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741).
There's a good movie that explains the unfortunate interplay between state power, politics, religion, and the priests on the ground called "The Mission". Human history.. is complicated.
-
There's a good movie that explains the unfortunate interplay between state power, politics, religion, and the priests on the ground called "The Mission". Human history.. is complicated.
You are right, it is indeed. It's never so black and white of course, and as Ser Jorah says there's good and evil on both sides of every war that's ever been fought :P
-
Well yes, though, I am definitely not sure how Christian kill Native American ? Wasn't it not more a matter of expansionism, land grabbing, and more importantly, railroad companies ? Was religion really involved in native american history ?
The Spaniards went full Amarr on the indigenous peoples of the Americas, killing millions, raping and pillaging, and utterly destroying their societies. The priests gave them a pass as God's will, and blank cheques to murder any who would not convert.
Sorry I thought you only spoke of amerindians, not mesoamericans. :)
Indeed, in the case of those was one of the greatest genocides of all History, around 15M Incans dead in less than 50 years, and I have not even bothered to check for central America.
However, as much as missionaries raged and were all the fuss in those times, are we sure that they were the ones actually dictating to kill the natives and make them work to death in ore mines ? Or was it more greed and just a nation pillaging the resources of the new world ? I am not sure that religious institutions called for that. They just closed their eyes and converted the few natives the spaniards didn't kill.
The answer is pretty obvious in that case to me. Church was a lot less barbaric than secular power generally.
-
The answer is pretty obvious in that case to me. Church was a lot less barbaric than secular power generally.
One in the same. All authority and power came from the church, or by church consent.
-
To me it seems many argue we should not bother to fix X issue because many that are affected by X issue have Y issue to deal with too. Completely besides the point, but we will see, perhaps I am missing something.
See my Rawls fan (by the way thats what I meant in the Caladri thread about Rawls fanboys and others hitting each other with a stick). You Sir dont get my point, in a world with limited resources I have to choose. I repeat "I", and you have to "missionary" me for your goal (and throughfully you have failed). Secondly "to choose". Which mean we live in a world with opportunity cost, where 1 dollar spent on one thing means that I cant spend it on another. I hope this isnt to hard to understand or? Because right now... are You bloodbird and Silas "doing a mithra". Not reading or understand points, and only answer to does which they like.
In a world with limited reassures, I have to chose carefully and I HAVE DO A ORDINAL LIST OF PROBLEMS. Or in other words I have to rang problems.... and this whole thread is the definition of "first world problem". I could now stop and enter here the meme about the "skeptic third world kid" (the little black boy), which say: (upper row) "Your ordinal list of problems are blasphemy laws? (lower row) And this is how you try to help me?" You see the narcissism? Its like the US soldier which babble in Mogadishu in the nighties (to lazy to search for the youtube vid): "Iam here to bring you freedom." I think the amount of freedom was/and still not the problem (publius is to lazy to add the freedom-house index). I think, freedom was and still is the least of the problems there, and shouldnt be ordinal the first goal. The whole thing gets even more obscure and narcistic if we image that those people live in more freedom then us. As they live in the state of nature *publius enters trollface*
So to shorten the debate.... You dont need to explain (what I had quote above)... or wait "explain" in quotas. Because truthfully you (Bloodbird) and Silas dont undertsand science and/or positivism (as well as Mithra). You have to explain, why ordinal "your problem" is "the problem" for those people in jeopardy. If you cant do it, yeah then you dont do science or even give a explanation. (thats why I add the quotas) you just voice a opinion, and does are like asshole... everyone has one.
When thousands of scientists start murdering civilians, women, and children over who can calculate PI further, or has the more accurate climate models, I'll start rethinking my 'faith.'
In the mean time I'll keep watching and reading the history of Sunni kill Shia, Hindu kill Muslim, Jew kill Muslim, Protestant kill Catholic, Protestant kill Wiccan, Catholic kill scientists (burning alive, very classy), Catholic kill Jew, Christian kill Native American.. Are we seeing a pattern?
No. Enlighten me. And please dont forget to us a deduction and nice little syllogism (and as I said before if some cant do this... he should may close a certain hole to not harm more.*trollface*).
Overall I really dont like where this thread is going in the last pages.... Lying... Like the stable orbit around the atomic nucleus in closed paths wouldnt be explain in mathematics induction (Bohr), as well as there is causality of violence (all other people this time without Mithras). Tip for the future: The black box dont care whats inside, it only acts. In other words, a world with or without religion would act on/in violence or anarchy the same. POINT. Until this day I never heard any model which really could open the black box***, and/or could give me a good explanation on causality of violence (this time explanation without quotas).
___________
*** In ecomics and political science: Black Box: aus dem Behaviorismus stammender, in die Wirtschaftswissenschaften übernommener Begriff, der besagt, dass man zwar die Bedingungen und die Resultate menschlicher Handlungen messen kann, aber an die dazwischenliegenden Vorgänge der Entscheidungsfindung mit empirischen Mitteln nicht herankommt.
In englisch: Which means in short: I cant say something about the inside, but something how it acts. Why it acts how it does I dont know (and throughfully I dont care)...
I can say "I dont care", because of as Friedman explained in positive economics (a eassy which I linked here in this forum already... where I tried to explain his tree example) you dont need to explain everything (uncertainty doesnt falsfy science. Looks at the shithead Jean Baudrillard) as long you can give predictions, as well as your model explains logical and deductive whats happening. That I cant explain everything isnt bad... And here is my fundamental problem with scientism (ultra radical positivism), science doesnt need to explain everything. As I said before (to lazy to search), science doesnt need to explain transcendence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29). It doesnt need to explain everything (after life) nor it has to reason everything (black box).
Publius closes his rant and leaves this thread forever. :D
-
Actually, it was mostly clergy who spoke out against the treatment of meso- and southamerican natives by the encomienda system. One of the main figures there was Bartolomé de las Casas.
Also, I am really astonished what is considered to be science, here. A guy knocking flints against one another until he figures out how to make fire is apparently already a scientist, even though he has no sophisticated notion of hypothesis formation, logic, theories, universal laws of nature, statistics, peer-review, ordering knowledge into a systematic body, hindsight bias, scientific controls, distinction of main- and auxiliary hyposthesis etc. pp. nor were they really interested in scientific explanations.
And it's not so different for mechanics nowaday. I talked to a car mechanic just today and he assured me that he isn't really interested in attaining universalized knowledge that fits into a system of knowledge when fixing a car, but in fixing a car. Yes, he will use the insights of science and materials and tools that we wouldn't have without science, but that makes him as little of a scientist as using an i-pod makes me - or anyone else - a quantum physicist.
Similarly, people in antiquity had central heating, the creatans had warm and cold water pipes in their towns and heated their houses through them in the winter geothermally. Egyptians made tooth implants from hippo teeth around a thousand years before christ, long before anything resembling the idea of science emerged within greek philosophy. We know from the old papyri that their explanations weren't scientific either, nor were they even naturalistic in character.
While there's little mystery to making fire for us, for him it prolly was quite a magical process, too. Even until today smith in indigenous people that developed metal working have a magical, priestly quality as masters of fire and formers of metals. Their explanations why something works are really, really unscientific, but nonetheless they are quite successful in their craft and as well in propagating it.
Science is not simply trying things until something works, but it has to do with dscovering universal laws, build theories and complexes of theories that form scientific disciplines. Saying that it is a simple trial and error process of a 'hypothesis-test-loop' tuntil there's success is oversimplifying what science is and consist in to a degree that hurts and is denigrating of the people who do the hard and intellectually challanging work of an actual scientist.
Lastly, @ Silas, you vastly overstate how bad the conditions were for people back then and how much the supposed increase in living conditions are due to science. First, that is quite dependent on the exact time and region you speak about - and it is the same today, for example the Arabian Emirates have a much higher - much higher - living standard of it's citizens than, say, the US, even though they are ruled by Emirs that declared Islam to be the state religion, free spread of religion is quite restrictet and you can call the country a muslim country by all rights.
Also, as I pointed out things like tooth implants, seperated warm- and coldwater pipes, use of geothermal energy, and many others were known quite early in the history of humankind, when the prevailing system of thought was a mythic one and how it was possible to have all these things was explained by mythical stories, which also were used to preserve said knowledge.
And even the prejudice of the 'dark' medieval age is mainly just that: a prejudice. Historically speaking, it wasn't that 'brutal time of rampant disease, no medicine, starvation, extreme levels of violence as a % of population, short life spans with brutal endings, superstitious and violent tribes, and fear and ignorance of the world around us' you want to make it for the greater glory of modern science.
Universities are a child of the middle ages, for example. In particular of the church. 12th and 13th centuries saw growth in economy and technological innovation - mainly outside of academic/scientific system but within traditional guilds that had a more hands-on approach then the theory-centered science of that and the the modern era (they were more interested in 'how to' or procedural knowledge than the 'know that/why' or propositional knowledge that science is centered around (though modern science is technology oriented in that is orienting propositional knowledge towards application)). Arts and culture flourished in the romanesque and gothic architecture and art. Serfdom actually declined in western Europe.
The picture of the medieval age as a "time of ignorance and superstition" that placed "the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity" is, historically speaking, a caricature manufactured during the renaissance and enlightenment and the latter ones did characterise the medieval age exactly like that because they held science and reason to be superior to religion and faith (Davies Europe pp. 291–293 and Lindberg "Medieval Church Encounters" When Science & Christianity Meet p. 8), when this actually is a distinction that wasn't alife in the medieval age, where science, reason, religion and faith merged in the scholastic worldview. And no, peole didn't either die at the age of 40, usually. Either they died young or much later at approximately the same age as later on up to the 18th century - where it went down with the industrial revolution only to recover later again. (even in the upper paleolithic life expectency was closer to 54 years if one survived the comparatively vulnerable state of childhood.) So, what later application of science really did was reducing child mortality quite a bit, which is really great, but it's not like everyone died at 40 years back then - that was the work of applying science in early modern times.
These myths about 'them olden times before science helped us out' are shown to be such - maybe ironically - by modern historical and archelogical science.
-
If anyone finds a poverty stricken society with just and proper governance, let me know.
-
Quite the point, Nmaro: People need to secure survival before being able to look towards what the good life consists in.
-
Quite the point, Nmaro: People need to secure survival before being able to look towards what the good life consists in.
Just briefly acting on some friendly advice, I would just like to emphasise that I do not mean to appear short with anyone, which, as it was brought to my attention, sometimes comes across. I generally adhere to Orwell's rules of writing, I.e. never use more words than necessary.
-
I admire people who're good at making their point with few words: I'm really bad at it.
One more thing @Silas: I think it's fairer/intellectually more honest to compare (people killed 'through effects of religion'/time) to (people killed 'through effects of science'/time), rather than taking time as a multiplier there or taking the sum with time. Just, you know, scientifically speaking.
-
You'd have to weigh it according to total population numbers over the time to make a proper statement.
-
Will respond more when not @ work but basically:
Scientific / evidence-based world view says "this is the best explanation we have currently based on what we know through repeatable experimentation that anyone is free to do on their own. It will likely change when we know more. We DON'T have all the answers. This is our best guess."
Religion:
"We" are the chosen people/race/gender and are very special. This old book says so, or God told me. See? Right there on the page. Or God told me that I should be your King. I have all the answers right here, and all the rules you must follow, too. No, god didn't tell you? That's too bad. I'll take 1/10 of your $ for the church please.
Bad things happen because God wills it. All Knowing. All Loving. Omnipotent. Yes beautiful Sunrise. That's me. Love you feel, that's me. But.... That child got gang raped and hung from a tree? I knew it was going to happen, I didn't stop it. Part of the plan! Nazis killed 6 million Jews? Women? Children? Part of the plan. Infinite Love. Your dead parents in that car crash? Yup, your welcome! Ebola virus! Yay! Don't question the plan. Beyond your feeble understanding.
I acknowledge there could very well be a God. I don't want to meet him.
-
Will respond more when not @ work but basically:
Scientific / evidence-based world view says "this is the best explanation we have currently based on what we know through repeatable experimentation that anyone is free to do on their own. It will likely change when we know more. We DON'T have all the answers. This is our best guess."
Religion:
"We" are the chosen people/race/gender and are very special. This old book says so, or God told me. See? Right there on the page. Or God told me that I should be your King. I have all the answers right here, and all the rules you must follow, too. No, god didn't tell you? That's too bad. I'll take 1/10 of your $ for the church please.
Bad things happen because God wills it. All Knowing. All Loving. Omnipotent. Yes beautiful Sunrise. That's me. Love you feel, that's me. But.... That child got gang raped and hung from a tree? I knew it was going to happen, I didn't stop it. Part of the plan! Nazis killed 6 million Jews? Women? Children? Part of the plan. Infinite Love. Your dead parents in that car crash? Yup, your welcome! Ebola virus! Yay! Don't question the plan. Beyond your feeble understanding.
I acknowledge there could very well be a God. I don't want to meet him.
Ugh. Enough straw-men for one paragraph? At this point a sound bite discussion isn't productive. I offered to exchange emails off line, I reiterate that, and I'll leave it at that and leave the discussion.
-
Will respond more when not @ work but basically:
Scientific / evidence-based world view says "this is the best explanation we have currently based on what we know through repeatable experimentation that anyone is free to do on their own. It will likely change when we know more. We DON'T have all the answers. This is our best guess."
Religion:
"We" are the chosen people/race/gender and are very special. This old book says so, or God told me. See? Right there on the page. Or God told me that I should be your King. I have all the answers right here, and all the rules you must follow, too. No, god didn't tell you? That's too bad. I'll take 1/10 of your $ for the church please.
Bad things happen because God wills it. All Knowing. All Loving. Omnipotent. Yes beautiful Sunrise. That's me. Love you feel, that's me. But.... That child got gang raped and hung from a tree? I knew it was going to happen, I didn't stop it. Part of the plan! Nazis killed 6 million Jews? Women? Children? Part of the plan. Infinite Love. Your dead parents in that car crash? Yup, your welcome! Ebola virus! Yay! Don't question the plan. Beyond your feeble understanding.
I acknowledge there could very well be a God. I don't want to meet him.
Ugh. Enough straw-men for one paragraph? At this point a sound bite discussion isn't productive. I offered to exchange emails off line, I reiterate that, and I'll leave it at that and leave the discussion.
There's no need to get upset. Many, many people believe bad things happen to good people because it's part of a grand design that we just don't understand, and that's fine. Billions of people do. Billions and billions. I'm in a tiny minority that doesn't. According to my peon moral code worshiping and thanking a diety for ruining your life and causing you harm, or allowing harm to come to you is strange, but I'm in the minority.
I frequently have to question my own beliefs simply because I'm in such a minority position compared to much of the planet. Is there something I'm missing? Does everyone else have it figured out? I keep coming up with the same answers though.
-
Will respond more when not @ work but basically:
Scientific / evidence-based world view says "this is the best explanation we have currently based on what we know through repeatable experimentation that anyone is free to do on their own. It will likely change when we know more. We DON'T have all the answers. This is our best guess."
Religion:
"We" are the chosen people/race/gender and are very special. This old book says so, or God told me. See? Right there on the page. Or God told me that I should be your King. I have all the answers right here, and all the rules you must follow, too. No, god didn't tell you? That's too bad. I'll take 1/10 of your $ for the church please.
Bad things happen because God wills it. All Knowing. All Loving. Omnipotent. Yes beautiful Sunrise. That's me. Love you feel, that's me. But.... That child got gang raped and hung from a tree? I knew it was going to happen, I didn't stop it. Part of the plan! Nazis killed 6 million Jews? Women? Children? Part of the plan. Infinite Love. Your dead parents in that car crash? Yup, your welcome! Ebola virus! Yay! Don't question the plan. Beyond your feeble understanding.
I acknowledge there could very well be a God. I don't want to meet him.
Ugh. Enough straw-men for one paragraph? At this point a sound bite discussion isn't productive. I offered to exchange emails off line, I reiterate that, and I'll leave it at that and leave the discussion.
There's no need to get upset. Many, many people believe bad things happen to good people because it's part of a grand design that we just don't understand, and that's fine. Billions of people do. Billions and billions. I'm in a tiny minority that doesn't. According to my peon moral code worshiping and thanking a diety for ruining your life and causing you harm, or allowing harm to come to you is strange, but I'm in the minority.
I frequently have to question my own beliefs simply because I'm in such a minority position compared to much of the planet. Is there something I'm missing? Does everyone else have it figured out? I keep coming up with the same answers though.
*gently* I couldn't either Silas. Certainly one isn't a peon for feeling your way. But nor is one an idiot for feeling the a different way either.
-
I apologize if my tone is coming across as overly rawr, I can assure you I am trying to keep it light-hearted, text be damned.
I've got a lot of religious friends and this is a frequent topic.
I grew up in a very conservative, rural area in the US, and was probably one of the only kids (that I knew of) in grammar school who wasn't involved with church and other religious activities in the community. While my experiences are of course not a representation of the entirety of christendom, growing up in a hick town with a high percentage of conservatives, not highly educated folks who don't treat non-believers the nicest tends to color one's views.
As an American I also can't help but see that the particular groups that are always, always fighting against equality, women's rights, and progressive issues tend to be conservative, christian, and white.
Every political and social tent has its extreme elements, but America is a particularly religious country among industrialized nations, and it colors -all- of our politics in a way I'm not sure some of you Europeans might be familiar with.
We have a lot of politicians who make policy issues in accordance with scripture, and who try extremely hard to insert it into public life. I'm part of a minority of non-believers who are certifiably un-electable to public office. Athiests are viewed with more disdain than almost any other group in the country according to many polls.
If I come across as a bit antagonistic I apologize. Even though I have many amazing freedoms in the States, being athiest in public life here is worse than being homosexual to many.
-
[mod]Given that 'but Nazis' has already come into it, I think this thread has gone on long enough. Please check out the guidelines for this section (sticky at the top) regarding issues of religion, politics etc. for further guidance.[/mod]