5 Questions for the secular

[spidergoat]

• If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?
  
  Morality, love, and beauty are subjective judgments. This brain of chemical reactions is able to determine the methods for objective judgments about the world. They call it the scientific method. Besides that, the emergent properties of love, beauty, etc., are not necessarily genetically programmed. We do develop our own responses that can be contrary to the best interests of the genes.
  
  
• Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?
  
  I can't say that no one should believe in something, but I can say that that thing they believe in has no logical or rational support. Besides proof (which even in science is often impossible and irrelevant), we can show statistically the results of a certain pattern of behavior.
  
  
  
• Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?
  
  The bible is like an inkblot test. It contains so many contradictory statements that anyone can read into it what they want. I say chuck the whole thing out as a suitable guide to living and make up your own based on intuition, feeling, and the desires of the people.
  
  
• How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?
  
  If religion confined itself to amorphous spiritual matters, it would be difficult to make objective judgments about it. However, it makes claims about the physical world that can be tested.
  
  
• The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

Easily. We evolved in small tribal groups. It is likely that anyone you might meet from your tribe will share a certain percentage of your genes. Therefore, it is beneficial to assist them in emergencies as well as other activities. Of course, we don't think this through like that because evolution has already shaped our brains to act in this way. Rather, people that acted this way tended to live and preserve the tendency to act this way. In fact, all social creatures behave altruistically, it's natural. Religions only codified what was already there.

 

[Nin']

If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

Well if you really want to get down to it, you can't prove anything other then your own existence. We trust them just like you trust that the reality you perceive is real.

[*]Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

I really don't understand this question.

[*]Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

We attempt to subjectively understand what is fair and moral through the use of our BRAINS. It's really not hard to understand.

[*]How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

lol wat?

I wasn't aware that I needed knowledge of 'spiritual reality' to say religion is wrong. There's also a strong double standard here, you wouldn't tell someone they needed to have comprehensive knowledge of children's fairy tales to see if they are fictional or not. Or do you?

[*]The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?
[/LIST]

There are entire books on this, see The Selfish Gene.

Guilt comes from empathy because as intelligent self-aware Human beings we know what if feels like for others to suffer. Monkeys have been shown to have feelings just like us, yet biblically they are just dirty, souless animals.

 

[Balerion]

I love how theists with no knowledge of any of the sciences try to argue science and logic to back their claim for god, trying to shift the burden of proof...ridiculous.

 

[SkinWalker]

As SAM and Norsefire already pointed out, one can be both secular and religious, but I'll answer the questions anyway.

Based on that, I’d like to impose the following 5 questions to the secularists.

1. If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

1. 
   
   I don't know of any evolutionary scientists that assert what are brains tell us isn't real with regard to morality, love, etc. Chemical reactions, synaptic activity, and cognitive functions are definitely real. It is true that the cognitive priorities we place on constructs like morality and beauty are based on our own experiences, but this doesn't devalue the reality of the effect.
   
   Question 1 mischaracterizes the positions of science. Its a strawman.
   
   

   [*]Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

   
   True rationalism can neither be strong or weak. Something is either as rationally described or evaluated as possible or it isn't. But even if the argument you're positing is held by the so-called "secularists" is truly held, I would ask why should equal value be given to things that can be empirically demonstrated as things that cannot? Moreover, if you believe that things that cannot be empirically demonstrated have prima facie value, where then do you draw a line? Just the "spiritual" or superstitions in your own culture or do you give equal value to the "spirituality" and superstitions of other cultures? If so, would this apply even to the superstitions of cultures that contradict your own?
   
   Question 2 is a mischaracterization of what those who hold secular beliefs assert. It is a strawman.
   
   

   [*]Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

   
   The bible isn't capable of "stunting" the progress of society. It's just a piece of overrated literature. People stunt the progress of society. It could be people who have irrational ideologies based on irrational, literal, or even liberal interpretations of biblical passages, cherry-picked and defined or re-defined to suit their ideologies. Moreover, there's no reason, that I can see, to bother with validating any portion of the bible -assuming that by "validating" one means assigning certain portions to divine authorship. If you have another definition of "validating," feel free to clarify.
   
   Question 3 mischaracterizes the nature of societization, progress, and cultural evolution. It is a strawman.
   
   

   [*]How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

   
   The general position of secular philosophy isn't that no religion can see the whole truth so much as it is there's no good reason to assume that any single religion can reveal truth based on its superstitions. Moreover, "spiritual reality" is a meaningless and baseless term except to note that humans have superstitions which they refer to as "spiritual" and the existence of such superstitions is an apparent "reality."
   
   Question 4 mischaracterizes the nature of secular philosphy which doesn't set out to disprove superstition but, rather, to claim only that superstitions are not necessary to lead a humanistic and moral life. Indeed, many secular humanists also have religious beliefs, the simply don't think that one must be of their own religion to have morals, ethics, love, beauty, etc.
   
   Question 4 is a strawman.
   
   

   [5]The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

   
   How could it have not? Non-human primates exhibit similar attributes and characteristics of altruism as do several species of birds and canines. Does this imply they are religious?
   
   Question 5 mischaracterizes the nature of altruism and implies that altruism cannot be naturally selected for without demonstrating why. Merely stating it so is expecting it to be an accepted statement without premises is an appeal to force.
   
   Question 5 is both a strawman and argumentum ad baculum or a fortiori.
   
   I hope you found this helpful.

 

[Enterprise-D]

If religion confined itself to amorphous spiritual matters, it would be difficult to make objective judgments about it. However, it makes claims about the physical world that can be tested.

Duh...excellent answer SG...simple and powerful statement.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like ethics, morality and politics?

 

[SkinWalker]

Like ethics, morality and politics?

On cognitive, sociological, anthropological and psychological levels, yes. But each of these disciplines looks at these social constructs with somewhat differing perspectives.

The claims about the physical world are, nevertheless, there: claims of global flood, limited ages of the planet, temporary cessation of planetary rotation, intercessory prayer, etc.

These sorts of claims are at least potentially testable in that the physics can be worked out, the fossil/geological record can be examined, double-blind studies conducted, etc.

So, to answer your question: no. Not like ethics, morality and politics. Social constructs like this are informed by human behavior and experiences, which include religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

These sorts of claims are at least potentially testable in that the physics can be worked out, the fossil/geological record can be examined, double-blind studies conducted, etc.

What I find interesting in these studies [and I am not debating the validity of either premise here] is that there is an assumption on the part of the investigator that "disproving" any of these theories is somehow a negation of theism.

 

[SkinWalker]

They aren't negations of theism. They're only negations of the specific claims of theism. Nor does negating a single claim of theism necessarily invalidate other claims of theism unless one claim is dependent upon another.

However, I would say that more and more claims of theism may come into question as more and more are negated.

Also, if you're of the belief that your doctrine is the literal work of your god and inherently inerrant, then you might be predisposed to believe that to negate a single claim negates all, therefore you protect the single regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

I'm trying very hard to word this as carefully as possible so as not to seem like the typical "angry atheist," and I hope I did. I'd rather the content of my words be the main focal point rather than my personal worldview.

 

[ggazoo]

Well if you really want to get down to it, you can't prove anything other then your own existence.

How can we even prove that? Who's to say that we all didn't come into existence just 5 minutes ago, but our memories are programmed to take us back further than that?

 

[S.A.M.]

First of all Sharia is not divine guidance. It is based on Fiqh and contains all the legal systems with arguments on jurisprudence from Muslim societies. It includes for example,old pagan Arab Bedouin laws, commercial law from Mecca, agrarian law from Madina, laws from the conquered countries under Muslims, Roman law and Jewish law.

Its not "my" idea of secularism that I was explaining. It was Mohammed's. My own idea is that sharia is not limited to Muslims. In a society like that covered by the Dastur ul Medina, where political, cultural and social rights are equal and shared, sharia [or consensus] is extended to everyone.

I think it is a fatal mistake to believe that Islam is for the Muslims. It is for everyone.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

India is a secular country. We are theists.

Most of the athiests on this board are not secular. They mock theists and consider themselves better than them. Thats discrimination. Not secularism.

I certainly don't intend to be mean. but it's nigh impossible to discuss these things without seeming to mock & nearly as difficult not to actually fall into a mocking mood. Plenty of theists mock atheists & religions other than theirs much nastier than I've seen from atheists. At least I have logic behind me rather than faith.
Try telling a mechanic autos actually don't run on gasoline. The gasoline disappears as divine spirits make the parts move. Because The Holy Babble says so.
If the sun stood still, as the Holy Babble says, primitive people wouldn't have noticed it a bit.
The Holy Babble says Earth has 4 corners, there was a day before the sun or Earth were created, in some cases a rape victim should be forced to marry her attacker, people should suffer horribly for eternity simply for believing the "wrong" thing, menstruation is a sickness, a man with defective genitals can't enter the temple, go ye therefore into the world & preach the gospel to every CREATURE, etc etc
Criticizing someone for mocking absurdities is absurd.

 

[S.A.M.]

Criticizing someone for mocking absurdities is absurd.

If you think a difference in belief is absurdity, you're intolerant.

Do you go to other countries and laugh at people who do things differently than you?

 

[Enterprise-D]

How can we even prove that? Who's to say that we all didn't come into existence just 5 minutes ago, but our memories are programmed to take us back further than that?

As good old Commander Riker addressed this comment once in Star Trek..."Anything is possible. What however is the likelyhood of such an event?"

 

[XPsyrixX]

Though the secular view of the world is rationally possible, I don’t think that it make as much sense of the world as the view that God exists. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God (that statement alone requires it’s own thread, which I would be more than happy to start). Those who argue against the existence of God use induction, language, and their cognitive faculties, all of which make far more sense in a universe in which God has created and supports them all by his power.

Based on that, I’d like to impose the following 5 questions to the secularists.

1. If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?
   
   
2. Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?
   
   
3. Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?
   
   
4. How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?
   
   
5. The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

Christian. Hear me. Belief in your "God" requires the assumption of the existence of a "soul". Give me evidence of a "soul", since you certainly can't give evidence of your "God". I will reply once the necessity for me to make such a ridiculous leap has been satisfied. More likely, you will hide away in a corner, mewling to your "God", just as you did in the gladiatorial arenas, as the lions paced about. You will get as much help as those lion-meals to be did.

 

[Roman]

Most of the athiests on this board are not secular. They mock theists and consider themselves better than them. Thats discrimination. Not secularism.

You can be discriminatory and still secular.
Secular refers to practices of the government. As far as I know, most of the atheists on this board are unemployed highschoolers.

 

[S.A.M.]

You can be discriminatory and still secular.
Secular refers to practices of the government. As far as I know, most of the atheists on this board are unemployed highschoolers.

Secular is an ideology, the government represents what the people want. If you are discriminatory, you're not secular. I cannot for example, be killing athiests and claim to be secular.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You can be discriminatory and still secular.
Secular refers to practices of the government. As far as I know, most of the atheists on this board are unemployed highschoolers.

You don't know very far.

 

[Nin']

How can we even prove that? Who's to say that we all didn't come into existence just 5 minutes ago, but our memories are programmed to take us back further than that?

1. I think

2. Therefore, I am

I'm not saying we can prove our physical existence, just they existence of your own mind.

 

[Enterprise-D]

You can be discriminatory and still secular.
Secular refers to practices of the government. As far as I know, most of the atheists on this board are unemployed highschoolers.

You don't know very far.

Clearly he does not.