View Single Post
Old 01-23-2007, 07:52 PM   #7
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Mike Doolittle (Post #6):
Sure, I agree. But let me give you an example. If a person decides to visit his lonely, dying friend in the hospital, you might be able to find a variety of scientific explanations for the behavior – i.e., a host of factors that may influence his desire to see his friend rather than, say, sit at home and watch TV. But in the mind of this person, he is never going to be thinking, "I am going to go visit my friend because [insert rational, scientific reason]." He is going to say, "I'm visiting my friend because I care about him and it's the right thing to do."
I see your point, but I did not suggest that we should adopt a strictly rational thought process, only a "more rational thought process." Of course, it isn't practical (or even possible) to calculate every event of your day in terms of whether it is or is not rationalism. I'm basically saying that the problem of humanity isn't that we are just way too rational. And I don't think we're disagreeing it all.

He was responding to the notion that science solves the moral problems created by fervent religious devotion. He makes the point that it is human nature, irrespective of religion, that drives people against each other.
Sure he was. And he did make that point well. But now we're drifting away from my original complaint, which was in making that point was arguing against a straw man?

His obviously rhetorical suggestion that we take Eugeniks to its logical extreme was an example of how the abandonment of theological concepts if favor of a strictly positivist viewpoint does not inherently preclude a more compassionate society.
I don't know if Liddle was being all that rhetorical. I mean, he did harp on that point for a good while. He seems to me to be clearly saying that Eugenics follow Darwinism, so Darwinists should follow Eugenics.

I do think the question of whether there is a vacuum which religion currently fills is an interesting one. But, again, if people were only more rational (and genuinely curious), I think they'd find that the awe of looking up at starry sky (which is, in fact, looking back in time) can be just as satisfying as any religious experience. For me, at least, the vacuum is filled.

Last edited by Nicato; 01-23-2007 at 08:01 PM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote