Secular Humanism

Post Reply New Topic

I find most peculiar your flat statement that there are no oughts in science. I really wonder what you mean by that. If science indicates that particular desired results require specific actions to produce those results (and that's what a good deal of science seems to be about) then your statement seems to me to be obviously a gross misunderstanding of science. If a scientifically rational analysis indicated that if people behaved in a particular way in their social interaction then there would be a minimum of disaster and a maximum of good behavior I would think a good many "oughts" are indicated to produce the most beneficial results. At this point I doubt enough understanding of human psychology and sociology has been acquired to produce maximum social satisfaction but I do not accept it is beyond the realm of possibility and progress is being made. Your complete confusion between indoctrination and transferring meaningful understanding gained through rational analysis of information is, to say the least, rather odd.

Not an answer.

The belief that beliefs should be tested is a belief. It is also an untestable belief. Because of this, according to you, it shouldn't be taken into consideration, which means that the idea cannot consider itself important. A major flaw.

The belief that things should not be taken on faith is itself taken on faith. A problem.


A pure free-market of ideas without discrimination upon what these ideas are, and ultimately a view of knowledge that allows for multiple different methodologies to exist, rather than just submitting all things to the scientific method.


Where do you get the "should"s from? If this model works for some aim, then why not take it? Why SHOULDN'T I believe that elves are jumping around inside my body? (Note: should not and "why is it illogical?" are 2 different questions)


Ok, sure.

http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf

Page 22:
"On truth-seeking, while unbiased beliefs may be closer to the truth, self-favoring beliefs can better serve other goals. The virtues of self-confidence and self-esteem are widely touted (Benabou and Tirole 2002). Parents who believe in their children care more for them, and the best salesmen believe in their product, whether it is good or bad. By thinking highly of himself, John may induce Mary to think more highly of John, making Mary more willing to associate with John."

"Scientists with unreasonably optimistic beliefs about their research projects may work harder and thus better advance scientific knowledge (Everett 2001; Kitcher 1990). Instead of simply agreeing with some standard position, people can better show off their independence and intelligence by inventing original positions and defending them. In response to our informal queries, numerous academics have told us that trying to disagree less would feel dishonest, destroy their identity, make them less human, and risk paralyzing self-doubt."

"Regarding self-deception, people seem more likely to gain the benefits of biased beliefs if they do not believe that they are biased (Taylor 1989). For example, a salesman is more persuasive when thinks he likes his product because of its features, rather that the fact that it is his product."

As seen from the 2nd excerpt, it was a result of inquiries that scientists believed that their irrational self-confidence allowed them to avoid paralyzing self-doubt, along with maintaining their identity and sense of humanity.

As seen from the 2nd excerpt, there is research substantiating the idea that more biased researchers are more productive researchers.

The research paper itself points to the benefits of self-confidence(which is usually to an irrational extent given that the level of confidence that is the baseline in humanity is well-known as incorrect). As well, it points to benefits of self-deception in the theoretical example of a salesman.

Now, entrepreneurs will have to be likely to be more self-confident than average if they are expecting financial gain from taking a large financial risk with their own credit ratings and ultimately their life-paths. In fact, that is almost the basic working of an entrepreneur. As such, it makes sense to consider this path to likely have to be irrational given how many new businesses tend to fail.

Is that enough substantiation? I could probably find more if necessary, however, I think that the research provided is solid enough to make sufficient claims on this matter.

I could also add that from the same paper, there is a footnote pointing to the idea that irrationality was an evolutionary adaptation to a certain extent.

Pg 23:
"Many have considered the evolutionary origins of self-deception and excess confidence one’s own abilities (Waldman 1994). For example, truth-seekers who find it hard to lie can benefit by changing their beliefs (Trivers 1985; Trivers 2000). On topics like politics or religion, which are widely discussed but which impose few direct penalties for mistaken beliefs, our distant ancestors may have mainly demonstrated their cleverness and knowledge by inventing original positions and defending them well (Miller 2000)."


I never said that risk-taking in all places and circumstances is necessarily beneficial.

Frankly, your example of a risky action really has almost no probability of success I wouldn't think, so it is no risk at all.

An example of beneficial risk-taking is pretty clear though, entrepreneurial actions. Those inherently involve risk, loss, etc. However, those inherently create benefit to both successful undertakers of such operations, and benefits to society by paving the way for future growth in the new ideas put forward by the entrepreneur. It is hard to say that entrepreneurship isn't risky though, as these individuals take on a higher risk than a person who chose to do nothing.


No, it really is dishonest.

The first definition isn't the questioning of morals but rather the study of morals. Ethics is basically another term for the study of morality(right and wrong). The second definition refers to moral principles, which means that it is closely related to morality. It is telling that one of the synonyms for "ethical" is the term "moral".

eth-i-cal (ethi-kl).Exhibiting goodness and decency; scrupulous. adj.ethical, aboveboard, honorable, decent, good, high-minded, honest, moral, uncorrupt, upright, upstanding, wholesome.Antonyms: unethical, unscrupulous, dishonest, amoral.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Well.... actually, I agree with your criticism of the state. Liberal democracy isn't really a neutral state, but rather a state expressing liberal values, and these values preclude the existence of other values.


Absolutely irrelevant.


Depends upon the anarchist you ask. However, I would simply argue that a lot of things that the government does could potentially be done by private organizations. It would also be an improvement because of the increased ability of each individual to go their own path without as much unnecessary interference by other individuals. To put this short, I basically agree with Robert Nozick's idea of utopia, but I do not agree with his analysis of anarchy, and think it is possible.(Nozick was a philosopher who argued that the minimal state is the only justifiable state)

I'd argue that communism is further fetched, as I would argue that the major problem with communism was the problem found in the socialist calculation debate, between economists Oskar Lange and Otto Lerner on the socialist side, and economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek on the pro-market side, and basically I side with the latter group. The interesting thing is that the intellectual descendants of economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek have tended to be anarchists, often because they perceive the argument made there to apply as well to all forms of government.


Absolutely!


Well... no.

Main Entry: mor·al
Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

The major part of the definition is "right behavior". The issue then comes how a group of individuals can make something true by wishing it enough, and the number of individuals required to make this truth, and the sociological conditions for making this truth about human actions to be so. When it comes down to it, it ends up seeming ridiculous, as if the US can make torture moral and abortion immoral, then why can't I personally make shooting a baby in the face moral? Why would I have to consider this democratic opinion to be allowed to say that *anything* is true at all? Why even would the US's opinion matter? Why not China's? Why not France's?

When it comes down to it, your notion of morality just ends up seeming absurd. Because of that, I do not see why anything stated makes sense about morality. I mean, I don't even see why being unbiased would matter. It could be immoral to be unbiased about certain issues, so if it is wrong to be unbiased, then it cannot also be right at the same time.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 16 May 2009, 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Is the bolded part true? Does Secular Humanism really require that every individual must test ideologies and the like for themselves?

I can't see how it would be possible to uphold this tenet, since most people lack the knowledge necessary to put the vast amount of tradition we are exposed to beneath a competent scrutiny of their own.

It is not peculiar at all. Science isn't the study of morals. That's the end of that statement, all of the stuff you say are things I do not have to respond to because of that confusion. Not only that, but none of your examples provide reasoning as for the basis of the ought and how this ought really is universal. So, that's that.

I agree with your criticism of that, and I think that even the intelligent individuals of the world usually evaluate other beliefs than their own in a questionable manner. As there are so many beliefs that it becomes impossible to really test them in a manner that is unlike faith. Not only that, but confirmation biases are hard to avoid anyway.

quote="Awesomelyglorious"]

1. Logic is not supported by logic.
2. Therefore, logic is illogical.


Oh, it's a good example of a nation where state and (mosque) is not seperated. Can't hold the believers back, right?

Well, the issue is that you have a third premise, all things that are believed must be logical.

Ergo, we have
1) All things believed must be logical
2) Logic is not supported by logic
3) Based upon 2, logic is illogical
4) Therefore we should not believe in logic or the findings of logic

Reality is also fundamentally an unknown, with variations in the belief in what reality is over time. Not only that, but why should I care what reality says about a specific issue? I might not actually care what gender the rabbit has to any meaningful extent at all, or only care to a specific extent. Because of that, I might ignore the research, or I might only read researcher B, who claims that the rabbit is actually without gender despite the findings of other researchers.

Now, an additional issue is that scientific disagreement exists. That is undeniable. How then do we settle disputes between the arbiters of truth? Well, we cannot do so in a meaningful manner. Because of that, it is difficult to really come to a quick and easy conclusion, so therefore, going with what works might actually be a lot more sensible, even if going with what works leads us to some irrational conclusions from time to time.

Frankly, I don't see how your rabbit disproves my pragmatism. As, I am drawing somewhat from the philosophy of science in pushing a market of ideas, more specifically, I like the work of Paul Feyerabend, who points to historical scientific disagreement and changes in scientific perspective and says that because of the nature of these changes, it is absurd to just take science as a rational body, and says that we should just go with whatever.


If you are using this as an attack against me, then you must fundamentally misunderstand my point.

I would be not that negative regarding the historical function of religion: If you have a society of mostly highly uneducated people than a religious dogma is one way to civilize people. After the end of the Roman Empire the church had a great deal in ending the Dark Ages. When Charlemagne. Elizabeth I or other Ruler imposed over their people a state given and defined religion it was a mean to upkeep the public peace.

But those times are gone for the good - at least in the western world.

Going though your list:

1) Dogma: A dogma is statement which puts itself beyond prove. It is e.g. for a Catholic necessary to believe fully Mary entered heaven as an immaculate virgin. For Catholic is forbidden to "call into doubt" this (Munificentissimus Deus of Puis XII, 1950, sec. 45). Therefore a dogma can't be tested and is by it very nature to reject.

2) Ideologies: If an ideology is based on reasonable arguments (e.g. "A free capitalist system is the most effective ..." or "A liberal society can survive crises better than ...") than an ideology can be tested and argued. If this is not the case, it had to handled like a dogma.

3) Tradition: In the case of a tradition it had to be asked which function this tradition has and how it serves this function and which importance this function has still for society.



It the method on which the success story of the recent 400 years is based. In those 400 years humanity developed more means of production than in the 70'000 before! This is reason enough to discriminate against all other methods.



Kant provides one argumentation for a rational moral - but not the only one. You find such argumentations with the Stoics (namely Marcus Aurelius), with Socrates or also Hume.

But there is also a practical aspect: I can only survive if the society can survive. It would be against my interest to harm the society as whole by acting unmoral. I help people, because it is the unwritten contract that I rely on their help too.



I am not always certain on this point, but on a much different reasons than you: A state controlled church is less dangerous than a church fully seperated from the church. Ministers of church acting also as Civil Servant are less likely to be troublemakers. The Ottoian System of Church or the system established by Elizabeth I was not such a bad idea.

To illustrate this idea the front side of Shrine of Charlemagne in Aachen (finished in 1215) in which the emperor sits on the throne and the pope and a bishop are standing as his servants:



---

It is no big surprise that never a pope visited this church - they always preferred to pass by. BTW: The cathedral in Speyer, build 200 years earlier, as the biggest building of its time, has a similar propagandistic program and was also never visited by a pope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speyer_Cathedral

That does not prove your case. Your argument is that questioning has led to success with some matters at some points in time, ergo it should be accepted as a universal rule. The issue is that this does not prove universal questioning to be good, it only proves that it is beneficial on certain matters. In any case, I could also counter this by arguing that societies are maintained by their norms, which are pre-legal and in a sense are pre-rational, and that the laws maintaining society are ultimately built on these pre-legal, pre-rational foundations, which if questioned, would undercut the viability of law, as cops are not just obeyed because they have weaponry and can use force but rather are obeyed because people think it is "right" to obey cops. I would also argue that this can go deeper into matters of existential despair, because questioning of our own norms and values can be self-destructively obsessive, as we can never establish *any* of them due to the infinite regress faced. Not only that, but I could further argue by taking on McTell's argument that not all things can sensibly be questioned by a single individual.


Well, Kant's position is moral rationalism. Hume's position is moral intuitionism. When I was attacking moral rationalism, I was attacking the Kantian stance that morality emerges from rationality, which is a stance that I would think disagrees with our intuitions on the matter(people tend to side with intuitionism), and that disagrees with psychological studies involving psychopaths, who have working rational functions but function immorally.

In any case, I didn't want to get into a long discussion on meta-ethics. I will put forward this statement though: "If there were objective morals, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe."


Yes, that could be how moral intuitions emerged, but ethics and morality, while extending from the moral intuition, are not the same as it. There is no such thing as "acting unmoral" as nature has no category of "unmoral", and the intuition of morality rejects it's own descent, so it cannot be called just a social phrase either. So yes, people will cooperate even if "morals" do not exist, as it is rational, and this is not just a matter of unwritten contracts but also of maintaining positive social positions. However, people can violate these contracts and social relations at their will as well, there is nothing out there to say that Nazis and mass-murderers are wrong either, only that we do not like them.


Hmmm.... makes sense. I can't imagine that there tend to be as many problems with Fred Phelps characters under a state church system.

I always thought that seperation of church and state was more a safeguard against a church-controlled state than against a state-controlled church.

I'd not ever considered a state-controlled church before. It seems an interesting idea. I can think of reasons, though, for a church considering state control to be an intrusion they could do without (worry about the state mucking about with the church's ideology for its own secular reasons, for example). It could also be a bit tricky for the state if it is in control of several different churches with distinct, perhaps clashing, beliefs.

This is me going off the topic though.

Churches can consider state control to be an intrusion. One thing is that radicals will consider the state church to be a puppet, which can be seen with philosopher/theologian Soren Kierkegaard's attack on the Danish state church. Not only that, but the state is not allowed to discriminate for the same reasons a church would. For instance, if a church leader loses their faith, the church would remove them from their position, however, the state is not necessarily as free to do so, and I think there has been at least one case of a non-Christian church leader maintained as a matter of state affairs. (I could be wrong on this matter though, so if someone has a link that would be good)

Yes, the matter of multiple churches would be an issue, as a state could not control every church I don't think.

Churches consists of human being: The most are very happy with some honours, nice titles and privileges - just look at the Church of England.



They don't matter - they are always a minority.



You have the historical example of the Holy Roman Empire: After some turmoil during the first years of the reformation in the 1540s there was consolidation which finally ended in the Religious Settlement of Augsburg 1555: There were two allowed churches in German part: The Catholic Church, who's bishops were princes and civil servant of the realm and defacto appointed by the emperor and the local nobility, and a protestant church, controlled by the princes and the Free Cities. This compromise had been confirmed 1648 in the Peace of Westphalia and worked till the end of the Holy Roman Empire 1803/06.

It is not for you to say what science examines. The field of science is open for any type of investigation scientists decide to apply themselves to. If anybody is confused, it is you that seems to be entangled in the many idiocies of various claimants as to the roots of morality. Science concerns itself with actions and consequences and the concept that morality is immune from this process is beyond stupidity into some sort of supernatural verbal garbage.

No, but fields are by their nature limited, so science cannot be theology, it cannot be philosophy, it cannot be literary theory, it cannot be art, and so on and so forth.

The field of science is not open towards non-scientific endeavors. Something as abstract as morality would certainly count.

Umm.... no, you are confused, Sand. You don't know the actual referent that "morality" the term refers to, and then you attempt to attack me for correcting you on this matter. Ethics, the study of morality, is a discipline of philosophy. Meta-ethics perhaps falls into ontology. Neither of these studies is science. This is just straight-up a matter of definition, for if morality and ethics were defined otherwise, then they would be a part of the discipline of psychology.

Yes, morality is by definition outside of science. It refers to something abstract. Something that might not even exist. Abstract things that might not exist are outside of scientific analysis, just as science is not particularly concerned with the existence of heaven or hell. You can call this supernatural verbal garbage, but morality can easily be considered that, with moral nihilism existing on the part of some major atheists such as J.L. Mackie.

I think my side of this matter is pretty well settled, and so I don't see any reason to address this further with you, Sand.

Exactly this is what science does too: It tries to understand what make "art" to "art"; what happens in our brain when we listen to Bach or see the Parthenon, what happens in our brains when poeple have religous feeling or where come religion and how it does develop from one form to the other.

There is no area outside scientific investigation.



If moral is a set of behaviour pattern is a matter of science to understand the underlying mechanism.