Kreitsauce's Musings

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

4 Comments for this entry

• 

  Shamelessly Atheist
  May 14th, 2009 on 11:48 am

  Interesting. But there are groups which totally accept naturalism. The National Academy of Sciences in the US. The British Royal Society. Yes, these are nefarious criminal organizations predicated on taking over the world. I’m sure last week one of their members got a parking ticket somewhere.

  There is no absolute moral standard and never has been. This is easily demonstrated by the change of the definition of ‘murder’ throughout history. In the 12th cent. CE Maimonides writes that killing gentiles was a good thing, even if a fellow Jew was killed in the process. The Sanhedrin agreed. I don’t think we would accept such a position today. Not even me, and I am a metaphysical naturalist.

  Science is naturalist for one reason – it is the ONLY way in which we can have any confidence that acquired knowledge is indeed knowledge. This whole fear-mongering diatribe is an exercise in specious reasoning. Beside, Hitler was hardly a naturalist. We’ve seen where theocracies lead to – pain, suffering, oppression, suppression of knowledge. Yeah, religion has a pretty good track record on such things.

  Reply
• 

  kreitsauce
  May 14th, 2009 on 11:56 am

  There may be some disagreement for what constitutes murder, but there is no such thing as a culture that approves of the killing of anyone at any time for any reason. There is universal consensus that there is a line somewhere. The fact that there are differences between cultures does not eliminate the presence of absolute morality.

  Science is naturalist because it assumes naturalism. It is not true that a naturalist worldview is essential to science. One can believe that God made everything and still want to know how He made everything to work. I don’t really know where theocracy came in, friend. I am talking about society in general. God may govern in the affairs of men, but He leaves it to Man to order his own government and establish his own society. Ancient Israel was the only theocracy. Hitler was a naturalist in that he accepted a Darwinistic explanation for the universe. Between Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, I would say that atheism also has quite the record. The difference is that people have to go directly against the teachings of Christ in order to use religion to gain control, while there is nothing within naturalism that says that people can’t do that. If we came from nothing and are going nowhere, why not?

  Reply
• 

  Shamelessly Atheist
  May 14th, 2009 on 5:09 pm

  “There may be some disagreement for what constitutes murder, but there is no such thing as a culture that approves of the killing of anyone at any time for any reason.” Baloney. Ever hear of a little state called Texas, where state-sanctioned murder is rampant?

  “It is not true that a naturalist worldview is essential to science.” More baloney. It is impossible to test the supernatural and is therefor not science.

  ” Ancient Israel was the only theocracy.” Man, but you need a history lesson. ALL OF EUROPE WAS A THEOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE AGES. The pope reigned supreme. When the pope sneeze, the king of France jumped. Ever hear of the Albigensian Crusade? Up to a million Cathars were murdered over 20 years in the 13 cent. CE on order of Pope Innocent III because they dared to differ in belief. THAT’S where religious principles taken to the extreme invariably lead.

  And Hitler believed in god, as did the vast majority of those who carried out the Holocaust. Nor could the Holocaust have ever occurred in the absence of rampant anti-semitism, a product purely of Christian origin. Hitler was only following the prescription Martin Luther spelled out in his hate-filled book “On the Jews and Their Lies” which stated that all Jews should be killed. In the 12th cent. CE the name of the city of Berlitz was changed to Judenberg in honor of burning alive every Jew they could find. Your view does not explain why this is.

  The others were ideologues (like Hitler) who placed their ideals above the welfare of humanity. One does not need religion to actually care about the welfare of humanity. I doesn’t even seem to help. Absolute knowledge, whether religious or not, is how such atrocities occur.

  “…there is nothing within naturalism that says that people can’t do that.” No one has ever said there is anything about morality in naturalism. It is not a philosophy of ethics, though it does explain where morals come from. I am both a metaphysical naturalist and a secular humanist – these are completely compatible. One is immensely successful in explaining phenomena (inclusion of religion would in fact destroy our ability to gather knowledge) and the other is a wonderful way in which to treat each other. Yes, there are scientists who believe in god, but none of them include god in their explanations of phenomena. They leave their religion at the door. They have to – science and religion are mutually incompatible ways of looking at the world.

  Question: If being a naturalist naturally (pardon the pun) leads to evil or at least nihilism, why am I not out raping and pillaging? Why do I find it repulsive and immoral (and I do)? Your narrow view is incapable of explaining this.

  Reply
• 

  kreitsauce
  May 14th, 2009 on 5:11 pm

  I wouldn’t be so quick to decry things as baloney.

  Remember: I’m saying that there isn’t such a thing as a culture where human life has no meaning, where I can go out and kill anyone I like for any reason. Whatever your position is on Texas’ so-called “state sanctioned murder”, Texas isn’t saying that anything goes. Every culture knows a line exists. They just aren’t in agreement as to where that line is. Morality is very much universal.

  I think you’re confusing the two types of theocracy. There is the biblical Theocracy in which God directly dictated laws and covenants in Israel. The other sort of theocracy, the kind I take it you mean, is the sort where men (the Pope) presumes to speak for God. That’s a completely different scenario. If your beef is with the Catholic Church, then say so. Of course they’ve screwed up, but their screw ups are the result of doing the opposite of what Jesus said. They weren’t following religion. They were using it.

  Hitler was many things, but he wasn’t a Theist. Here’s some of what I wrote in a previous post:

  “The last century saw the rise of powerful atheist regimes in Russia, China, Germany, among others. Stalin’s Communist regime was responsible for the deaths of around 20 million people. Mao Zedong’s regime was responsible for around 70 million. Strangely enough, Hitler “lags behind” his fellow atheist’s regimes by “only” murdering 10 million people, 60% of whom were Jews. Pol Pot of Cambodia was responsible for the deaths of 20% of his country’s population in only four years. All told, atheist regimes are responsible for the deaths of well over 100 million people. Think about it: an estimated 200,000 people were killed in the Crusades, Inquisition, and witch burnings combined. Even if you adjust for the increase in population between the Middle Ages, colonial American history, and the 20th century, the deaths caused in the name of Christ only amount to 1% of those caused by atheist regimes of just the “Big Three”: Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.

  “Stalin and Mao’s Communist regimes were strongly anti-religious. We have little reason to doubt that atheism is a major component of their ideology. Their brand of Communism calls for the elimination of wealthier classes, emphasizes violent change, and calls for the creation of an atheist “utopia.” Both Communism and Nazism saw Christianity as an obstacle, if not an outright enemy.

  “A book titled Hitler’s Table Talk gives a collection of Hitler’s private writings and opinions which was compiled by one of his aides. He called Christianity a “scourge” and desired that Germany be “immunized against this disease.” Through the lower classes he wanted to “destroy Christianity”, and he blamed the Jews for “inventing” Christianity. He saw Christianity as weak because it emphasized equality and compassion. Hitler’s advisers such as Bormann, Goebbels, Heydrich, and Himmler were rabid atheists who despised religion.

  “The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, imprisoned and murdered the clergy, closed churches and religious schools, confiscated church property, and censored religious writings. This was Nietzsche’s “lust to dominate” come full circle. That mentality combined with a modern idealogy that saw man as the originator of morality (a natural result of atheism) resulted in a bloodbath that the world still mourns over. Atheism, not Christianity or even Islam, is responsible for the greatest massacres found in history.”

  Who says science and religion are incompatible. There are plenty of believing scientists. Look at my post: http://kreitsauce.renewingminds.com/?p=205 I quote quite a few scientists there.

  Of course naturalism doesn’t necessarily lead one to become Hitler. However, it does nothing to hinder it. It is not so with Christianity. How can you find something repulsive and immoral without a basis for morality? It is naturalism that is a thin worldview incapable of explaining morality.

  Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website