The God Delusion - TTLG Forums

mopgoblin on 29/1/2007 at 00:03

Quote Posted by paloalto

Even in a worst case scenario you can compare fatherless single parent households in that scenario with families that have a father and mother in that scenario.Thus negating the shitty social and economic climate that you speak of.

You could start there, but your argument needs such a strong outcome (all children without a parent of each sex must be screwed up) that you're not going to get the result you want. My argument only requires that a child can turn out fine with a single parent or homosexual parents, and that only really needs one example to get a solid start. Four examples, one for each combination of the sex of the child and the sex of the parent/parents, would cover all cases. Once you have those examples, you can't justify an outright ban on adoption by individuals or homosexual couples.

the_grip on 29/1/2007 at 01:38

Single parenting works, but even the ACLU website mentions that single parent households force a child to find rolemodels outside the home. Truth be told, i don't think enough research has taken place to evaluate homosexual same sex parents raising a child, but i don't dispute the notion that it has the potential to turn out fine. i would, however, not recommend biases sources for studies (like the ACLU or the Religious Right) because the studies tend to be geared to succeed for either group.

The whole gay adoption thing in England, however, has nothing to do with discrimination (which is what the law is trying to prevent). They do not oppose gay adoption - in fact, they refer homosexual folks who want to adopt kids to adoption agencies that will accomodate them. Read: THEY ARE NOT DISCRIMINATING. This is not something that is anti-gay or somehow an agenda to prevent homosexuals from becoming parents. As i mentioned before, it is their religious convictions and conscience that informs them as to what the family model is supposed to look like, and homosexual couples don't meet the criteria. Thus, they (as a policy) do not adopt to homosexual couples because of their religious convictions and conscience. In their eyes, this is pro-family and nothing to do with anti-gay. That's why i find this situation ludicrous - if they were trying to fight gay rights, or if (especially) this was a public institution, or if they were spitting out hate speech right and left, then i would be all for the legislation coming down on them.

Instead, these are peaceful folks trying to find homes for orphans according to their religious convictions, and it is a crime against justice to force them to act against their conscience given the situation. i don't see how you can make a plausible case any other way.

the_grip on 29/1/2007 at 02:02

Back to the OP, i'd like to toss something out for discussion (and i hope this hasn't already been discussed).

(NOTE: i want to reiterate that i haven't read the book yet, so if i am making incorrect assumptions then i apologize and am open to correction)

i think what might be the rub for folks, both the religious and those who are not, with works like this book by Dawkins ties into two points that are hooked together. Firstly, as has been mentioned, is that it is a big batch of negativity. It is as if Dawkins is trying to bring a wrecking ball through the culture of religion that we see in our day, but he is offering little in the way of being positive to provide something to replace it. According to the little i have read, Dawkins attempts at the end of the book to show how philosophy and science can fill the needs of religious folks who are trying to connect with deeper truths about reality in some way (which is what most religion is all about), but this book is largely about destroying instead of changing or improving. That tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth.

However, (and this is the second point) when atheism attempts to assert itself in an absolute way positively over religion (as Dawkins does at the end of the book), it seems to be self-defeating. The very core of atheism - that is, a materialistic look at the world that only sees scientific facts as having any kind of truth - doesn't allow for absolutes in morality and other such issues. Thus, morals and the like become culturally relative, and any kind of moral criticism loses its bite. Of course, athiesm does allow for pointing out flaws in logic used by the religious or the philosophical folks who allow for absolute truths, but it cannot offer anything positive in terms of direction for society and culture (other than the material).

All of this culminates when we look at issues like gay adoption - how can one truly justify that gays should not be discriminated against in society? As a Catholic Christian, i would affirm that they should not be discriminated against as people because of the dignity that is due all life, and, in particular, human to human (being human myself). i'm trying to see how atheism can justify this - or, on the flip side, condemn something like racism or Nazi Germany.

i suppose one could say that, by creating a more peaceful society that cooperates together, the greater good is upheld and thus the greater good for the individual. At the same time, we would have to ask what that "greater good" is, and how it could at all be morally relevant. i would argue (not personally as i don't believe in this stuff, but if i were under such a framework) that it would be better to short-circuit the greater good because such good comes out over the long run - probably beyond my lifespan - so personal gain in the short term would most always trump such longsighted endeavors. And, if someone disagreed, could they point to anything beyond the tyranny of the masses (i.e. cultural relativism)? And, in the future, could i be looked at as a hero by a culture whose morals changed (which, according to history, is likely inevitable)?

Just some thoughts - i have never explored this stuff much, and i'm not saying i affirm it. i'm just curious what a response would be.

Papy on 29/1/2007 at 07:03

Quote Posted by the_grip

Firstly, as has been mentioned, is that it is a big batch of negativity.

I guess (from what was said in this thread as I also have not read the book) this negativity is relative. Defending one line of thoughts always looks negative to the opposite line of thoughts. To me, the Bible is the negative book. It's a wrecking ball to logic and science ("science" as a way of thinking, not as a set of knowledge)... and I "believe" in those two values.

I think it's impossible to know what reality is, but I'm curious and I try to get as close as possible to the "truth". Thinking, searching and exploring is what I find interesting. But that's not the goal of religion. Religion is a set of very simple pseudo-answers, written by some men, that basically tell me : here's the "truth", don't look any further. Shut up, don't think, obey our values and you'll be happy. This is what religion is about. I'm sorry, but to me this is the worst wrecking ball of all. It is extremely destructive and I would be miserable if I was to follow this advice. I find happiness when I understand and discover, not when I have an excuse to stop searching.

When it's cold and raining, some people find happiness in a comfy chair while watching an entertaining TV show. Me, I think it's the perfect time for a 20 km run outside. I feel pain in my legs, I have difficulty breathing, I am soaked and cold, but I have a big smile on my face. Nothing can make me feel more alive. I understand you prefer your comfy chair, but don't say that running when it's cold and raining is negative because you don't like it.

Maybe hearing someone talking about how great he feels after his run leaves "a bad taste in the mouth", but, if it does, could it be it's because you're not perfectly satisfied with your comfy chair ? Could it be that deep down, you wish it was you feeling that great ? Maybe it's not your case, but I'm pretty sure that it is for a several persons. For them, The God Delusion may be, in the end, the most positive and constructive book they can find for their life. Sometimes, to build the new house you really want, you need to demolish your old one before.

Quote Posted by the_grip

The very core of atheism - that is, a materialistic look at the world that only sees scientific facts as having any kind of truth - doesn't allow for absolutes in morality and other such issues. Thus, morals and the like become culturally relative, and any kind of moral criticism loses its bite.

Religion depends on culture, and so any morals, even the ones imposed by religions, are culturally relative. Anyway, what's wrong with not having absolutes ? Personally, I think absolutes ARE what's wrong with religion. Life is a lot more interesting in color or even shades of gray than in plain black and white. Sure, it makes painting a lot more difficult, but I'm ok with it.

Quote Posted by the_grip

Of course, athiesm does allow for pointing out flaws in logic used by the religious or the philosophical folks who allow for absolute truths, but it cannot offer anything positive in terms of direction for society and culture (other than the material).

You're right, but... that's the point ! I don't need anyone to give me directions, I'm old enough, I'm mature enough, and I can find, by myself, my own directions. I can define my own moral values, I can define what I should do for whatever reason I choose. I can define my whole life. Being an atheist does not mean I don't have moral values, it only means that my moral values were chosen by me instead of someone else.

Atheism is not another religion and it will not give you any answer. You'll have nothing to guide you, you'll have to find and judge everything by yourself. What's wrong with that ? Atheism won't condemn racism, but an atheist will (or not), based on the moral values he chose. Yes, atheism makes the world a lot more complex. Atheism is about a world made of individuals instead of one unique collective entity. So ?

lambizkit on 29/1/2007 at 07:21

Define Atheism. Is it a general view or is it personal? I've heard it said that Aethist's don't believe in God or that they don't believe in a creator. Why is that? Can they explain everything away with Science? If there did exist a possible shred of truth that casts light on the existence of a God, would they stop being Aethist and become believers? Just wondering.

And I don't believe that all religions are about keeping people in the dark and making them slaves. From the comments on Aethism that some have posted I'm under the impression that they view religion in general as a prison of some sorts. I belong to a religion and sure they have guidelines that are set in place to allow for a more happy life. Some of the guidelines fall along the lines of good health and so restrict certain types of consumables. My religion also believes in Free Agency. The guidelines are there, follow them or not...it's entirely up to you. I don't believe that God want's to restrict anyone but ultimately wants them to be happy. This might not have much to do with the OP but I felt impressed to cast my two cents on the topic.

Vivian on 29/1/2007 at 13:28

Atheists don't believe in any gods at all. Hence 'A-theist', like arthymical or apolitical. The people who aren't sure are technically agnostics. I'm never sure which I am, but I'm pretty sure it would take a lot of things happening for me to believe in any of the gods they've made up so far (I.E. Shiva showing up at my flat to imprison me in an infinite palace of fire or something) so I suppose I'm more of an atheist.

PS IF GOD EXISTED HE WOULD HAVE SHUT THIS GODDAMN THREAD UP ABOUT SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND PAGES AGO YOU CHATTY BLOODY HEATHENS

the_grip on 29/1/2007 at 14:17

Great response Papy, thanks for taking the time for that.

Quote:

Defending one line of thoughts always looks negative to the opposite line of thoughts.

i suppose i should clarify - i don't mean negative in a moral sense, i mean it in a constructivist (is that a word?) sense. In other words, it is the literal idea of "tearing down" or "taking apart" as opposed to offering an alternative, being constructive, etc. i'm not trying to say that Dawkins is negative in a moral sense, for, as you mention, that is relative.

Thanks again for the great post.

SD on 29/1/2007 at 14:30

Quote Posted by the_grip

how can one truly justify that gays should not be discriminated against in society? As a Catholic Christian, i would affirm that they should not be discriminated against as people because of the dignity that is due all life, and, in particular, human to human (being human myself). i'm trying to see how atheism can justify this - or, on the flip side, condemn something like racism or Nazi Germany.

I don't understand why you would have difficulty reconciling atheistic thought with morality. As a Catholic you affirm they should not be discriminated against because of the dignity that is due to them - as an atheist I also affirm they should not be discriminated against because of the dignity that is due to them. Basic human decency doesn't come from God. It is in our own interests to get along with other members of our species. We're social animals. That's just biology.

I didn't really understand the bit after this... sorry

Quote Posted by lambizkit

I can assure you that if anything whatsoever pointed towards the existence of a god or gods, that atheists would alter their beliefs, because atheist beliefs are rooted in the tangible. When the facts change, science can change its mind; that kind of flexibility isn't something one could say about religion.

So far as whether everything can be explained with science; most things can. I mean, we now know that the Sun moves across the sky, not because it's being pulled by a god driving a golden chariot, but because the Earth spins on its axis. That's an example of science smacking down a religious belief right there. We're working on the rest.

Quote:

And I don't believe that all religions are about keeping people in the dark and making them slaves. From the comments on Aethism that some have posted I'm under the impression that they view religion in general as a prison of some sorts.

I don't think it's so much a "prison" as it is a restriction in the way people think. Many atheists would prefer people to think for themselves rather than swallowing the first superstitious belief system their parents exposed them to.

lambizkit on 29/1/2007 at 16:48

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

I don't think it's so much a "prison" as it is a restriction in the way people think. Many atheists would prefer people to think for themselves rather than swallowing the first supperstitious belief system their parents exposed them to.

I totally agree with you. Blind followers of the faith, so to speak, make good drones hehe. In fact just the other day I was having this same conversation with a buddy of mine. We were discussing the whole issue behind blindly following God's commandments instead of figuring out why it was good to follow them or following them because "you" really wanted to and not because of someone else. Since I believe in God, I also believe that God does not want these types of people in his religion. I think he would prefer to have people who think for themselves. Now, I don't want to imply that I know how God thinks or acts, this is just my opinion. I believe that the greatest gift we have is Free Agency, given to us by God himself and so we should exercise it.

Regarding science and most things being explained away by science... I have this to throw at you, just something to think about. If God is an almighty, all powerful and all knowing being, then he would know everything the scientists know a million times over right? Lets just say that God created the world, the sun, the stars, etc. using scientific methods and not some voodoo magic. What if he orchestrated the Big Bang? That would explain why science can explain away what was once thought of as miracles by society. Scientists just happen to be learning what God already knows albeit they are still a long way off. Something to think about at any rate.

paloalto on 29/1/2007 at 21:38

Quote:

Oh no, trust me, it would do a lot of good. Even just one study? Pretty please? I linked to the ACLU report that showed no detrimental effect of homosexual adoption, the least you can do is provide something similar from the other side.

One last response on this.The statement about innumerable studies since the 1950's is about the other statement of the importance of the child bonding with the mother not any negative effects of homosexual parenting.You point to one study showing there are none.And my position is we need more study.The difference between you and I is that I am willing to say I don't know and you are not.You want to take one study and draw a conclusion.The issue is what is best for the child not any couples who may adopt the child.Capice.