Reason Rally (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 01, 2012, 04:37 (4598 days ago) @ dhw

TONY (B_M): I don't sit on the fence because I do not admit its existence.
> 
> DHW: Surely you admit that there are theists and there are atheists. Why won't you let those of us who are neither sit on our fence in between?
> -As David pointed out so simply and eloquently in the "Why is there anything?" thread, theism and atheism is a null distinction, really. Both groups have faith. Both groups ultimately have to admit in a first cause. Both groups take some form of energetic state as the first cause(regardless of the state). Anything beyond that is simply in the realms of a theological debate. Is the energy organised and sentient or a disorganized bull in a china shop that's followed around by a million monkeys beating typewriters to death. If that energy state was labeled God, all you would be arguing about is whether god is intelligent or Forest Gump, too stupid and mindless to fail. No one KNOWS the truth of the matter, we all just speculate. In that Agnostics are no different than theist or atheist, you just happen to be a little more fluid in your views. So, the fence that you are sitting on is an imaginary one. The real distinction is NOT whether there is or is not a God(despite the claims of atheism), but whether or not there are any discernible intelligent traits that we can gleam about its nature either from observation or intuition, and whether or not any knowledge gleaned places any obligation on us as sentient creations of said entity. Just my two cents though. I could be all sorts of wrong. -As a theist, I have some other views that are along this line, but I think they do not belong to this particular thread. -
> TONY (B_M): [Science] insulates itself from moral responsibility.
> 
> DHW: Maybe some scientists do. Science itself is (or perhaps "should be") the study of the material universe. Morality is not its remit. If scientists behave immorally (or "insulate themselves"), one should not blame science, any more than one should blame Christianity for the un-Christian acts of many so-called Christians (ditto Islam, Judaism etc.). 
> -Science as a discipline is what I refer to, not the scientist. I say this because science as a discipline rarely considers whether they SHOULD do something, only concerning itself with whether or not it COULD do it. There has been more than one pandora's box opened by such negligence.-> TONY: It has become a soap box for narcissistic rabble rousers to tout how much more they think they know than everyone else while looking down their noses and foaming at the mouth when anyone mentions anything that falls outside their narrow minded purview.
> 
> DHW:I'll wave the flag with you when it comes to those vociferous bigots you describe, but I'd like to think they are in a minority, and of course they're not confined to the scientific world. Your description is equally applicable to fundamentalists of all religious and political persuasions. In both past and present, such people have done far worse things than foam at the mouth, all in the name of God, Allah, or some political ideology. So let us condemn bigotry and fundamentalism in general, and bigoted, fundamentalist scientists in particular, but let's not condemn science.-Any time we speak in generalities we run the risk of condemning the innocent. Yes, it is the bigoted fundamentalist that I am referring too primarily. My accusation to science as a discipline though is the same that I leverage at religion and politics, that of allowing itself to be a platform for bigotry. -I grew up, as I have mentioned before, as a Jehovah's Witness. One thing that I truly admired about them, was that they were active, as an organization, about instructing their members NOT to stoop to that sort of fundamentalist bigotry. Several times a month, at least, I would hear something to the effect of, "Stay true to your faith, but do so with loving kindness, even to those who do not share your belief or do not treat you with the same respect."-It is a very simple moral precept, treat others as you yourself would want to be treated. I seriously doubt that Dawkins and his ilk want some rabid religious fundamentalist harassing them in the street every minute of the day.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.