Questioning the faith

[Lian]

Arguing if science or religion caused more death and suffering is going on the wrong track, imo, because science isn't the antithesis of religion. Atheism is the opposite of religion.

Religion is an ideology and a world view. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. If religious reople act as if science is their enemy, they are primarily harming themselves.

Crazydog7, I commend your search for truth. Ultimately, I think living your life in a way that you find genuine will make you feel best. Living an intellectually dishonest life is unfulfilling and empty. imo.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Well hell, while we're at it, let's lay ALL of history's casualties on Science! A suicide bomber may have thought he was killing in the name of religion, but actually we have to blame the guy who invented the bomb! Torquemada wouldn't have been much cop without those evil scientists inventing racks and thumbscrews, and I think the trumpet-makers can be held totally responsible for all of Joshua's victims.

Guys, if we do have to play the "my genocide is bigger than yours!" game, can we at least have a slightly more sensible way of assessing motives?

I have no interest in the "my genocide is bigger than yours!" game, but to pretend that science is not responsible for death is ignorant of history. But comparative games are ultimately futile exercises of revisionist history.

[Eponine]

Crazydog, how is your family responding to your deconversion? I hope that it's gone peacefully for you this far.

[TrueMetis]

The only reason science doesn't have as many casualties as religion is the head start religion had.

Science has its villains, religion has its villains, and I noticed one thing about the villains that they share.

They both disregard much of their field.

Hitler killed in the name of science (to purify the Arean Race), while disregarding one of the basics of Eugenics (IE. That evolution had to happen)

Torquemada disregarded the whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill" thing in the bible.

Hitler was a creationist, he rejected evolution, and eugenics is the exact opposite of evolution. Multiple times he says stuff like animals can only have variation in there kind an argument creationist use and I believe something that is said in the bible (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Eugenics is the opposite of evolution because it destroys much of the variation in a species which is essential to evolution. If you think Hitler accepted evolution or was an atheist I've got news for you he didn't and he wasn't.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Arguing if science or religion caused more death and suffering is going on the wrong track, imo, because science isn't the antithesis of religion. Atheism is the opposite of religion.

Antithesis or not, it sure disproves a lot of aspects of every religion I have ever heard of.

I will agree that the argument about what causes more death and suffering is moot, because if the christian god is for realsies, then all that death and suffering may be a good thing. That argument is tired, and moot because religion being the cause of most war and suffering does nothing to prove religions are fiction.

[Happy Ent]

Eugenics is the opposite of evolution because it destroys much of the variation in a species which is essential to evolution.

Nonsense. That’s like saying “natural selection” is the opposite of evolution.

Look, eugenics makes me as uncomfortable as the next guy, but the idea is as Darwinistic as it gets. (One of the earliest eugenicists, Galton, was Darwin’s close kin.) Eugenicists are exactly concerned with the issue that the benefits of modern society disrupt evolution (because some of the important fitness parameters are decoupled from reproductive advantage – smart, strong, “useful” women actually reproduce less, for example). The observation is that our (laudable) modern society is inherently dysgenic, and we need to balance that.

You may not like that. (I don’t.) But unless you deliberately misunderstand eugenics (which may be a politically useful thing to do), or actually think that evolution is mainly about variation (instead of selection), you need to accept that eugenics is an evolutionary ideology.

ETA: Those who foolishly want to construct an argumentum ad Hitlerum pro or contra evolution might want to start here: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution.

[Crazydog7]

While I'm thinking about it I've always wanted to ask what is this Objectiveism that you guys are always going on about?

Also what is Natural Law?

[Crazydog7]

Crazydog, how is your family responding to your deconversion? I hope that it's gone peacefully for you this far.

Well my mother keeps hoping its a temporary phase

my aunt is praying for me

my uncle laid hands on me

My cousin told me to look at the problem rationally and then went to pray for me

(although it turns out several of his siblings have been closet atheists for years they just figured it was none of anyone else's business)

It seems to me now that no one questions the depth of your faith in a church or a religious family as long you shout with the mob when called upon.

On a side note. This just came in the mail http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Faith-Preache...4074&sr=8-1

Looks interesting particularly when you think that this guy has been where I am now.

As for my belief structure I'm accepting this gradually now I still have the concept of a personal God who watches out for you and provides for you. The part of me that is trying to tackle this problem understands that this is just a way for to gear down as far as the faith thing goes.

This may be difficult for those of you who didn't grow up in a church to understand but I don't feel able to go from God to no God in a split second even though I feel ultimately that my questioning will lead me in that direction.

[TrueMetis]

Nonsense. That’s like saying “natural selection” is the opposite of evolution.

Look, eugenics makes me as uncomfortable as the next guy, but the idea is as Darwinistic as it gets. (One of the earliest eugenicists, Galton, was Darwin’s close kin.) Eugenicists are exactly concerned with the issue that the benefits of modern society disrupt evolution (because some of the important fitness parameters are decoupled from reproductive advantage – smart, strong, “useful” women actually reproduce less, for example). The observation is that our (laudable) modern society is inherently dysgenic, and we need to balance that.

You may not like that. (I don’t.) But unless you deliberately misunderstand eugenics (which may be a politically useful thing to do), or actually think that evolution is mainly about variation (instead of selection), you need to accept that eugenics is an evolutionary ideology.

ETA: Those who foolishly want to construct an argumentum ad Hitlerum pro or contra evolution might want to start here: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution.

In order for eugenics to work there has to be a "superior" human species but evolution tells us that there is no such thing. What works one day may not work the next. A species may be the apex predator with nothing able to beat it but then something may change wipeing it out (such as the connection of North and South which wiped out many South American species).

Evolution requires variation without variation there is no evolution. Eugenics would destroy most of the variation in the human species making evolution nearly impossible.

[Crazydog7]

s)

Oh and Crazydog you spelt questioning wrong. :P

I am flwed in that way. Thank God for Spellcheck.

[Lord Mord]

EDIT.

[Imp]

In order for eugenics to work there has to be a "superior" human species but evolution tells us that there is no such thing. What works one day may not work the next. A species may be the apex predator with nothing able to beat it but then something may change wipeing it out (such as the connection of North and South which wiped out many South American species).

Evolution requires variation without variation there is no evolution. Eugenics would destroy most of the variation in the human species making evolution nearly impossible.

Eugenics is simply applying a selection pressure in an attempt to give rise to a more "desired" phenotypic distribution in humans. It's just a human created natural selection, and is completely in line with evolutionary theory.

Sure I'm ethically opposed to it and it can be used to justify fucking horrific crimes but it isn't the opposite to anything.

[TrueMetis]

Eugenics is simply applying a selection pressure in an attempt to give rise to a more "desired" phenotypic distribution in humans. It's just a human created natural selection, and is completely in line with evolutionary theory.

Sure I'm ethically opposed to it and it can be used to justify fucking horrific crimes but it isn't the opposite to anything.

Everything eugenics is seems to be against evolution, maybe your right but eugenics seems like it would impede evolution by decreasing variation in order increase the frequency of some fairly useless traits. Sure you want to have sex with the blond more than the burnette or redhead but nothing about her makes her better than the burnette or redhead.

[Imp]

Everything eugenics is seems to be against evolution, maybe your right but eugenics seems like it would impede evolution by decreasing variation in order increase the frequency of some fairly useless traits. Sure you want to have sex with the blond more than the burnette or redhead but nothing about her makes her better than the burnette or redhead.

I wasn't really commenting on the usefulness of eugenics. Like you say it can have the downside of getting rid of a certain amount of genetic variation. But if we want to we could breed humans like livestock and enhance any number of traits to produce evolutionary change. Just like we can breed chickens to lay bigger eggs or cows to produce more milk. Most eugenisists would probably argue breeding humans for higher IQ (although this gives rise to the whole nature vs nurture arguement) or breed out genetic disorders.

Like I said ethically I think it's pretty fucked, but it's definately in line with evolutionary theory.

[TrueMetis]

I wasn't really commenting on the usefulness of eugenics. Like you say it can have the downside of getting rid of a certain amount of genetic variation. But if we want to we could breed humans like livestock and enhance any number of traits to produce evolutionary change. Just like we can breed chickens to lay bigger eggs or cows to produce more milk. Most eugenisists would probably argue breeding humans for higher IQ (although this gives rise to the whole nature vs nurture arguement) or breed out genetic disorders.

Like I said ethically I think it's pretty fucked, but it's definately in line with evolutionary theory.

Ok your right, but as a sidenote we have never actually created a new species through selective breeding, the Cow is still technically an Aurochs, and the Dog is still technically a Wolf.

[Ondrew Tyrell]

[Eugenics is] definately in line with evolutionary theory.

I assume you mean it was inspired by evolution, which is true. However, evolutionary theory does not predict, much less require, that organisms will act to raise the fitness of their competitors in the gene pool. In that sense, eugenics definitely does not follow from evolution.

[Happy Ent]

In order for eugenics to work there has to be a "superior" human species [...]

Your understanding of eugenics seems to be limited. While you’re of course allowed to caricature ideologies you don’t like as much as you want, do note that such arguments seldom convince anybody else.

It’s like starting a sentence with “Atheists think they can prove God doesn’t exist, so [...]”. You’d be misrepresenting what most atheists think, so you’d mainly argue against a position that nobody holds. (I do understand the rhetorical value of such a strategy, I just don’t like it much.)

--

Today, silently, society is actively employing eugenics when we give prospective parents the possibility to abort unborn offspring based on various “defects,” such as Down’s syndrome. It is highly plausible that, as pre-natal diagnosis improves, this option will be used increasingly. It’s one of the more interesting ethical debates today. For example, do you think that parents should be allowed to abort their children based on sex? We could very quickly see a whole generation of modern parents abort their male (!) foetuses. Diseases? Race? IQ?

The gist of this debate is that the eugenics movement is alive and well, but interestingly it has moved from the political arena into the family sphere. Eugenics @ home. We observe that it’s not necessary that society has a eugenics programme! Families can do that just fine. And they certainly will! For hundreds of thousands of dollars, if needed. (This investment, after all, is much more important than a college education.)

It’s all very unpleasant. And highly Darwinistic.

[Imp]

I assume you mean it was inspired by evolution, which is true. However, evolutionary theory does not predict, much less require, that organisms will act to raise the fitness of their competitors in the gene pool. In that sense, eugenics definitely does not follow from evolution.

Think this is just semantics. Yep attempting to 'raise' fitness as a species as a whole is artificial. No disagreement there. But I would say it's just a direct application of evolutionary theory much like modern livestock or crop breeding is, and is as much 'in line' with evolutionary theory as either of those.

[TrueMetis]

Your understanding of eugenics seems to be limited. While you’re of course allowed to caricature ideologies you don’t like as much as you want, do note that such arguments seldom convince anybody else.

It’s like starting a sentence with “Atheists think they can prove God doesn’t exist, so [...]”. You’d be misrepresenting what most atheists think, so you’d mainly argue against a position that nobody holds. (I do understand the rhetorical value of such a strategy, I just don’t like it much.)

"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species." What's the point of trying to improve the human species if there is no superior human species? Even so we've never been able to improve any of the species we have put through selective breeding, most species we have bred wouldn't be able to survive in the wild, dogs and horses can but they don't do any better than they did in the wild. Selective breeding will get desired traits but it will not improve the species. Same with eugenics.

Today, silently, society is actively employing eugenics when we give prospective parents the possibility to abort unborn offspring based on various “defects,” such as Down’s syndrome. It is highly plausible that, as pre-natal diagnosis improves, this option will be used increasingly. It’s one of the more interesting ethical debates today. For example, do you think that parents should be allowed to abort their children based on sex? We could very quickly see a whole generation of modern parents abort their male (!) foetuses. Diseases? Race? IQ?

The gist of this debate is that the eugenics movement is alive and well, but interestingly it has moved from the political arena into the family sphere. Eugenics @ home. We observe that it’s not necessary that society has a eugenics programme! Families can do that just fine. And they certainly will! For hundreds of thousands of dollars, if needed. (This investment, after all, is much more important than a college education.)

It’s all very unpleasant. And highly Darwinistic.

I wouldn't call that eugenics, these people aren't trying to change the human race just their kid. Not that they can do much more than abort those kids, and even then there are plenty of people who will have the kid regardless. Anyway in terms of evolution these kids are dead ends anyway, most of them will not pass on their genes.

What the hell do you mean by "Darwinistic"?

[Ondrew Tyrell]

Think this is just semantics. Yep attempting to 'raise' fitness as a species as a whole is artificial. No disagreement there. But I would say it's just a direct application of evolutionary theory much like modern livestock or crop breeding is, and is as much 'in line' with evolutionary theory as either of those.

I understand you were primarily responding to Silent-Stalker's point about variation, but since this started with the morality of science, I just think it is worth stressing that science never tells what to do, only how to do it. In particular that is the relationship between eugenics and evolution.

By the way, by "modern" breeding do you mean that farmers are sequencing their cows now or something? Obviously selective breeding predated Darwin, and in my limited experience I haven't heard of any earth-shattering changes to breeding that modern evolutionary theory has brought about.