Replace the root nature of the subjective concept of "good" with an evolutionary basis for treating others with respect and dignity allows us to progress without justification of rule by brute force
Scott, "voluntarily" is dubious - Jim Jones, David Koresh, other cult leaders hijack and subvert free will. That happens on a mass scale from time to time, too. "What was I thinking?" Respect for human dignity must be at the base of any real system that is moral. When there are two people, they will disagree about some aspect of how life "should" be lived. We need a modicum of government to protect the rights of the less powerful to retain their views and, if they do not pose a harm to others and themselves, their practices. As it goes, there would be differences over "human dignity" (e.g., whether women should leave their head uncovered), and if humanity learns to think about semantics as variances of thought, they might be misled less frequently. Kudos for your dietary choices.
The Soviet Union was run by management. Soviet specifically Means Committee. I'm not sure we can replace one governing entity with another by semantics and make progress.
I think the solution involves establishing and protecting processes that respect human dignity because we all benefit when people thrive. I shared some tenets that I would hope might be useful in that regard.
Dr. Jorden Peterson blows that theory out of the water! He teaches, God's Religion civilized the wild savage human beasts! NOT symbiotic biology! But it's a good pitch to disavow God & prove P.T. Barnum’s theory of, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
true on an individual level as well. cellular telemetric length is greater in those who practice kindness than those who engage in hate. evolutionary logic at its most elegant.
Your problem is that all your definitions are based on a Christian worldview. You interpret reality based on that worldview, and not an atheistic worldview.
I’m sure there are more up to date articles but this one refers to the statistician . A fascinating discovery and story behind this biological postural ? approach to addressing back pain.
I read the article; it's about what people do with their particular frameworks of "comprehension", but not about fundamentals. Every political system can be corrupted. Every framework of comprehension can become perverted and used for material gain, undue influence, etc. I addressed that reality. My article is about Peterson and his clearly circular claim of a theistic source of objective knowledge: he says we need to invoke a God for it to exist, and if there is no God, then there is no rational basis for anything other than brute force justification (might makes right). Once one sees through the haze of their own geographic and temporal parochial concerns, one can see his grave logical error as well as the grave risk of his non-sequitur "and therefore it would mean no basis for government other than brute force". The required end (to defeat globalism/WEF/communism) does not justify abandoning empirical science or delegating it to a second tier under a clearly theistic mode of knowledge-claiming. I've listened to enough of his discussion and lectures to know that we must take him at face value; his thinking about this big "either/or" in his mind on the only basis for government, the only basis for Science is not hyperbole. He means it. And if he means it, he's far afield from the logician I thought he was. I hope people understand that what Fauci et al. did was not Science. It was Science-like activities. Objective science is a way of understanding, towards approaching knowledge. It is independent of politics and abuses of knowledge systems and belief systems. When it is not, it becomes corrupted and is no longer Science.
Not a big fan of Peterson, I understand what you said... My issue is that you are as theistic as anybody else... On the other hand as far as I have seen science has always followed the power structure of a society. What Faucists do are lies I don't reckon that.... But I suspect that you still believe that ''scientific public policy'' is possible. It is not. Public policy is an art whether we like it or not. ''Real science have never been tried''. Sorry but no.
I don’t think Jordan explains the nuance and foundation of the argument as clearly or deeply as others. I think people like Tim Keller in Reason For God and CS Lewis in chapter 1 of Mere Christianity make the argument best. I would like to hear your thoughts on them because they expand on it more and I think address a lot of what you’re saying. Id like to summarize their points, but there are reasons that wrote entire chapters on it.
Thank you for your analysis. This was a good read and very thought provoking. Especially viewing it in light of current global politics is insightful.
“…Christian ethos happen to share many of the same characteristics with the winning strategies of running societies…”
Do you really think this is pure coincidence? I am an atheist, but I have come to believe that on a collective level, religion is crucial to the survival of a civilization. That is not to say that individuals cannot be moral without believing in that religion and its deity/deities.
@Christian Wallgren Christian ethos just happens to be instructions from the manufacturer/ God! You can be your own faith based, DYI, do it yourself god, BUT it won't keep you out of Satan's Hell! [Fact!] Jesus died to buy Your free ticket to Heaven IF?
No, I don't think it's coincidence. I'm saying that secular societies of the West have impacted Christianity far more than, say, society has impacted Islam. Islamic countries are theistic; their religion is their law (although some have two sets of laws). Look at how Islam has remain unchanged relative to Christianity. The culture and the dominant religion of the culture have co-create each other. I would add that I would certainly hope that humanity would grow up enough, fast enough, to have purely securely societies that do not have to kept in check by appeals to after-life punish (Jordan believes in hell, for example). A deference to a higher authority without God can lead to an entirely all-too-power State, but decentralization can also be a conscious choice.
You can "Say" that! BUT that doesn't make it so! What was the glue that brought waring suspicious tribes together, to form cohesive prospering Society's & advanced science? Jordan Peterson knows! My best example of a flourishing society was the Godley Pilgrims who dabble in proto P.C. Commie Marxist style collectivism in the 1620's it "impacted" them with death & disharmony! [Fact!] Thomas Bradford dumped that foolishness, realizing government can't play God, in a God/ Jesus engineered world! (I.E. that long predicted Jesus who was crucified died & rose from the dead as documented by many!) Bringing us to who engineered this massively complex symbiotic cosmoses & world? A magic lightning bolt? violating Einstein's 2nd law of thermodynamics, holding things go from a state order to disorder? Note: With no God/ Our Creator, (as our wise founders put it]) to believe in, one can be made to believe anything." That's not just me babbling it's instructions from the manufacturer's I.E God’s! Not from some Leftists dumb-Down liberal arts indoctrination collage for Cogs! I.E. the topic of so many book out now!
BUT who need him when you have confidence, & a degree in liberal arts, Right?
Thank you for this excellent article. My study of the work and teachings of David R Hawkins MD PhD has given me such comfort during these times. His 1995 groundbreaking work, Power Vs Force (from his doctoral dissertation Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis and Calibration of the Levels of Human Consciousness) has helped me see that logic, science and reason are fantastic for certain parameters in the world. I agree with you--absolutely one can be into science and faith. I also agree with Dr Hawkins that you can't think your way to God--it is a different level of consciousness. He created a Map of Consciousness which has helped me get a bead on myself and understanding the world I'm in. I pray for the highest good--I see that as vastly different than the common good. Many blessings to you and yours--all who are reading this.
@Kelly; David R Hawkins MD PhD and his followers weren't documented to have been put to death supporting his teachings! Many godless/ faith based religions can make you Feel good [in this short life] BUT for [scientifically documented & proven] everlasting long haul, Life, Jesus is your ONLY chance to get to Heaven! He & his follower were put to death supporting God’s claim! Would David R Hawkins MD PhD & followers do the same?/ Disavow his teaching under threat of death, I wonder? Do you?
@James Lyons! Who's rule & good, Hitler's, Stalin's Mao's, Biden's? [OR] "Our Creator's" [as Our Founder's put it, at risk of life] According to the best selling/ [scientifically proven [with the supporting odds of over, 1in10 to the 17th power] book], ever!
"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in HIM,/ [I.E. not evolution!] should not perish, but have everlasting life." [John 3:16] Realize the whole point of Godless Leftist's Satan inspired, dumb-down "education" is counter to all that, I.E. big government & big pharma is the only god you need, They say!
Steve, I don't have a response to your quoted scripture, but your text before it makes one of my points: both secular systems and religious systems can be used for evil. No single human should have the power of a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Our societies are currently very sick, and some see rationality as a potential path to sociological wellness. Others appeal to God. Peterson wants to dismiss Science as an arbiter of truth; it never was possible to use Science to prove ultimate truth... but his reasoning is "there are too many facts to rely on any of them for a solid basis for a government". I disagree. I offered some thoughts on a secular basis of rational ethics. If it makes sense and does not lead to the destruction of your right to worship freely, then you might consider it as a first draft that could be considered by believers and non-believers. If you see a flaw in it, other than it is not the word of God, please let me know.
It still comes down to who's "Rationality"/ Kant's Schopenhauer's Nietzsche" Marx? Kant did accurately predict mass death for dumbing God's inspiration (The same guy USA's founders based & built the greatest nation on God's green earth on! Were our founders wrong & ignorant for mentioning, quote: "Our Creator" [at risk of life?] What do you know that they didn't?
Outside of a creator God humans become gods and lousy ones at that. The human body is too complex to be formed by macro evolution. All parts hat to arrive at the exact right time to call it an eye.
With the Biblical God constantly kicked out of the picture the behavior of Fauci and others makes perfect sense to me.
When my atheist son called that his bike was stolen, I reminded him in his worldview of evolutionary biology and survival of the fittest that the other guy deserved the bike. I also told him if he had an issue with “thou shalt not steal”, he should re-examine his worldview because every atheist steals from God when it is convenient. Put another way, if you can say something is good or evil then you admit there are rules of engagement, but then deny the giver of the rules as to what is classified as good or evil. This is just simply denial of one’s own sin and the desire to be God. When a scientist shows me how he can remove the sun and hang it again then I will rethink my position. Until then I will read and follow my manufacturers instruction to avoid as much distress in this twisted world as possible.
"in that as an evolutionary biologist, as a scientist, I should not dabble in the occult."
I take it here you mean "occult" as in "hidden," with no underlying meaning of "superstition."
"I won’t even debate his belief: the testability demarcation between Science and faith-based reasoning is clear"
I'm trying to flesh this out. From where I sit, science ultimately relies on testimony for experimental evidence and (Christian) faith likewise relies on testimony. Both therefore have similar epistemological bases for belief. (Yes, this means that you can't escape belief when you do science. You have to trust the testimony of others when they report data. Sure, any and all data can be tested for repeatability, given unlimited resources, but practically, some leap of faith is required.) So is there some overlap that may be tested?
Also, the Christian faith is not required necessarily for an ethical system, but it is likely superior to some. But how can that proposition be tested?
I'd say don't write when you're in pain! Or at least edit once you feel better. I agree with most of what you say here but after reading so many of your posts, I'd say this is a bumpy journey.
You've handled the discussion of God and the insurmountable problem of proving the existence of same extremely well. But I think you get a bit wobbly in approaching "religion."
The Soviet Union certainly had a state faith and all the necessary accoutrements, and the Russian people (and all the subject peoples forced into the Soviet) were already conditioned by traditional faiths to slide smoothly enough into substituting one dogma for another. But that's really irrelevant in looking at WWII. If you're facing a monstrous enemy you'll fight ferociously against it, and the Soviet Union, with the grimmest of good fortune, had enough manpower to keep hurling bodies into horrendous conflict and still have enough to replenish the losses. Hard to beat an opponent who has that dreadful advantage.
Something you and Peterson and Dawkins miss is that people (and all sentient creatures) are *born* with individual natures that are reinforceable but not, shall we say, imposable. I saw that as a parent; the impulses of great goodness were evident in my toddler child and honestly, I can't take very much credit for the rationality and powerful sense of natural ethics my now-adult kid possesses. My only role in that was providing a loving, nurturing environment so my child could reach full inherent potential. I have a strong belief in the existence of what, for the sake of convenience, we shall call God, though, at this stage in my life, without any dogma attached, and my child is an atheist. I exposed my child to my own beliefs and my child was exposed to the strong faith beliefs of others in the extended family, but I always emphasized that belief in anything is a matter of personal perceived truth that cannot be imposed from outside.
All societies of creatures--from insect to human--organize into hierarchies and one may say that the alpha pair of wolves are deities to the pack. It's lonely to reject authority, it reduces one's chances of survival, and being shunned out of the group can be fatal. It's a real wonder that so many individuals from the beginning of time have had the courage and will to diverge from the directed path.
Anyway "religion" is just a shortcut word. Everything is resources and the power to accumulate them, keep them and dole them out as is politically advantageous to yourself. Everything else, as is said, is commentary.
Scott, I appreciate your input. However, there have been thousands of scientists who have followed the tenets of science, not cheated, not conducted fraud, discovered new things about the universe in the world around us, and believed in God. As an empiricist I have to say therefore it is possible for a human being to be an objective scientist and to have faith. I'm not seeking approval from those you call idiots, I am merely applying the central tenet of objective empirical observation and dry conclusions from what can obviously be seen. There is reliable ample data and evidence that your position is incorrect. Of course that is not to say that I agree with her particular belief, but then scientists who have faith in different date he's also disagreed on certain fundamentals, no don't they? All in all I do believe you've missed the point of the article.
I would argue that Science can, at best, only arrive at empirical falsehoods. Hence the requirement for “testable”. I would also argue that there’s no such thing as empirical truth. IMO, Science is, at its best, only asymptomatic to the truth.
In the end, everything in the sciences can be traced back to beliefs/values. Beliefs/values can only be justified, not deduced. You deduce/reason *from* beliefs/values, not to them. Whether one practices a religion or doesn’t, whether one does science or doesn’t, whether one does both or does neither, failure to recognize where the boundaries are between one’s beliefs and one’s reason leads to dogma. IMO, dogma is the big bad wolf. I really appreciate that the article attempts to take great care to avoid dogma and mockery.
I agree that children can be born with the potential for inherent traits, but I bet your children are more rational and more even-keeled because you didn't burn your house down, or invite drug dealers in, or have it shot up; you didn't abuse them and so they could develop to meet their inborn potential. I don't dismiss that. But we can also recognize that children can only come to know the God (or Gods) to which they are introduced; the phenotypic plasticity of faith is worth reflecting upon, as it is an example of an inherent trait, worth protecting and worth protecting from hijack by power technocratic interlopers.
My child was introduced to my belief in God, and was very close to my mother and her friends and their rabbi etc. etc. But I always made clear that belief can't be imposed from outside but must be felt from inside. And my child had a variety of school friends, many of whom followed faiths not in our family's (maternal and paternal different) faith traditions.
People may be inherently good; inherently bad; or inherently persuadable because of inherent weakness of character. Nurture and the larger environment play their part. But no one is a blank or fuzzy slate.
Thank you Steve. I did not ask you to comment on my post. Since you asked--I don't wish to engage with comments such as yours and especially those that are closed ended questions. I wish you all the best, now kindly leave me be.
No wonder! All dumb down "educated" Libs & Dems [I.E. the topic of so many book out now] can't support their critical thinking free, ramblings, why is that?
The problem isn’t the argument but the approach. Many people don’t want to engage with someone engaging in this way. Whether it’s consciously known or not, the tone is aggressive and appears to come from a place of anger. This was the point of calling them “closed-ended questions”. It’s like holding a gun and asking, “do you feel lucky?” No one wonders why the one being asked doesn’t engage. The “questioner” is too volatile and the “conversation” is likely to be a waste of time. The purpose of my engaging you with my comment is that I’m hoping you’re simply ignorant of how the comments read to others. If you’re fully aware of the present social dynamic, then that makes you a troll. Which means you know why people aren’t engaging.
No dumb-down "educated"/ Godless fools Can't "engage" rationally, if one asks non P.C. question! [Fact!] He couldn't answer me, so triggered you go off on a irrelevant tangent! [Is it about me mentioning God to James the empiricist?] In response to his take on "rules & good"! [No trolling involved] with my, "Who's rules & good, Hitler's, Stalin's Mao's, Biden's? [OR] "Our Creator's" [as Our Founder's put it, at risk of life]
Looks like he pulled his comment and ramble on with your silly haughty & rude comment! Could you respond to my question, above? I bet not! I DO wish YOU all God's best! Good luck I await your relevant answer! Goo dluck!!! Steve Mitzner
Some good points James.. Tho I think the definition of free will being used is a very vague one. Ultimately a scientist can't believe in free will as defined as will that does not depend on conditions.
As for the benefit of religion on morality, i do believe that religion can be very beneficial, but it does depend on which religion and how it is interpreted. The Golden Rule is not entirely useful, since some people are into S&M. A masochist would apply the golden rule by hurting people...
I am partial to Buddha's teachings. There's no need for a creator God to explain anything nor to create a moral system. We just need to understand that the path to the highest happiness requires being compassionate. It is a universal law. A masochist may disagree with this law, but that is because they are not seeing correctly, from the buddhist POV.
As for the particular details of how to be compassionate, those are not possible to define for every situation. For example, is it compassionate to be a soldier and defend your country against invaders? Even Buddha had some conflicting feelings. He said soldiers would go to hell for killing (unless they were able to become awakened to no-self before death), but on the other hand he said they were necessary to protect the noble peaceful folk...
The best selling book ever, tells [some of us] "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world,/ [happiness] and lose his own soul." I.E. For All eternity! I.E. an eternity in Hell vs Heaven! With "Our Creator" [as our founding fathers put it!]
What do you know, that they didn't? Please don't parrot, Deist! Most weren't!
The evolution of the Golden Rule: Old Testament - do unto others as they have done unto you (an eye for an eye); New Testament - do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Today - do unto others before they do unto you.
Wow, what a read- I will reread this one. Brought back to mind Huston Smith's teachings- especially your mentioning of the Golden Rule and the commonalities in religions....Thank you for the always thought provoking and helpful material you provide.
It's a stark display of Jordan Peterson's limitations as a thinker that he can't make any room in his mind for a genuine rational ethic.
For my part, I believe that the true and proper ethos of science, and the proper ethos in general, are essentially one in the same, a case I make here: https://reasonandliberty.com/rl
For example, we should expect of our closest friends, our legal system, and our science, all these same things: sincerity, which is saying what we mean and meaning what we say, which has to mean being logical; honesty; willingness to consider any and all evidence, even evidence that contradicts our present beliefs; integrity; respect for individual rights. One cannot be a good scientist, and also deny this ethos. Nor a good friend, nor a good judge or legislator. Furthermore, we can vindicate such ethos in rational terms.
Scott, "voluntarily" is dubious - Jim Jones, David Koresh, other cult leaders hijack and subvert free will. That happens on a mass scale from time to time, too. "What was I thinking?" Respect for human dignity must be at the base of any real system that is moral. When there are two people, they will disagree about some aspect of how life "should" be lived. We need a modicum of government to protect the rights of the less powerful to retain their views and, if they do not pose a harm to others and themselves, their practices. As it goes, there would be differences over "human dignity" (e.g., whether women should leave their head uncovered), and if humanity learns to think about semantics as variances of thought, they might be misled less frequently. Kudos for your dietary choices.
The Soviet Union was run by management. Soviet specifically Means Committee. I'm not sure we can replace one governing entity with another by semantics and make progress.
I am happy to discuss authority based on unwarranted knowledge claims as a fundamental distinction between legitimate and illegitimate government.
I think the solution involves establishing and protecting processes that respect human dignity because we all benefit when people thrive. I shared some tenets that I would hope might be useful in that regard.
There is a biological basis for altruism and ethics - it reinforces survival of the group and hence that of the individual
Prisoner's Dilemma
Dr. Jorden Peterson blows that theory out of the water! He teaches, God's Religion civilized the wild savage human beasts! NOT symbiotic biology! But it's a good pitch to disavow God & prove P.T. Barnum’s theory of, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
true on an individual level as well. cellular telemetric length is greater in those who practice kindness than those who engage in hate. evolutionary logic at its most elegant.
Your problem is that all your definitions are based on a Christian worldview. You interpret reality based on that worldview, and not an atheistic worldview.
Dear WHO,
NO THANK YOU - not ever, under any circumstances.
May the altruism and ethics of those fighting for truth save us from this surreptitious stealth.
FYI - Lumbar pain
https://gokhalemethod.com/blog/is_crowdsourcing_the_new_face_of_evidence_based_medicine
I’m sure there are more up to date articles but this one refers to the statistician . A fascinating discovery and story behind this biological postural ? approach to addressing back pain.
I think you need to start reading some of these.
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives/
I read the article; it's about what people do with their particular frameworks of "comprehension", but not about fundamentals. Every political system can be corrupted. Every framework of comprehension can become perverted and used for material gain, undue influence, etc. I addressed that reality. My article is about Peterson and his clearly circular claim of a theistic source of objective knowledge: he says we need to invoke a God for it to exist, and if there is no God, then there is no rational basis for anything other than brute force justification (might makes right). Once one sees through the haze of their own geographic and temporal parochial concerns, one can see his grave logical error as well as the grave risk of his non-sequitur "and therefore it would mean no basis for government other than brute force". The required end (to defeat globalism/WEF/communism) does not justify abandoning empirical science or delegating it to a second tier under a clearly theistic mode of knowledge-claiming. I've listened to enough of his discussion and lectures to know that we must take him at face value; his thinking about this big "either/or" in his mind on the only basis for government, the only basis for Science is not hyperbole. He means it. And if he means it, he's far afield from the logician I thought he was. I hope people understand that what Fauci et al. did was not Science. It was Science-like activities. Objective science is a way of understanding, towards approaching knowledge. It is independent of politics and abuses of knowledge systems and belief systems. When it is not, it becomes corrupted and is no longer Science.
The article or the whole book?...
Not a big fan of Peterson, I understand what you said... My issue is that you are as theistic as anybody else... On the other hand as far as I have seen science has always followed the power structure of a society. What Faucists do are lies I don't reckon that.... But I suspect that you still believe that ''scientific public policy'' is possible. It is not. Public policy is an art whether we like it or not. ''Real science have never been tried''. Sorry but no.
I don’t think Jordan explains the nuance and foundation of the argument as clearly or deeply as others. I think people like Tim Keller in Reason For God and CS Lewis in chapter 1 of Mere Christianity make the argument best. I would like to hear your thoughts on them because they expand on it more and I think address a lot of what you’re saying. Id like to summarize their points, but there are reasons that wrote entire chapters on it.
Thank you for your analysis. This was a good read and very thought provoking. Especially viewing it in light of current global politics is insightful.
“…Christian ethos happen to share many of the same characteristics with the winning strategies of running societies…”
Do you really think this is pure coincidence? I am an atheist, but I have come to believe that on a collective level, religion is crucial to the survival of a civilization. That is not to say that individuals cannot be moral without believing in that religion and its deity/deities.
@Christian Wallgren Christian ethos just happens to be instructions from the manufacturer/ God! You can be your own faith based, DYI, do it yourself god, BUT it won't keep you out of Satan's Hell! [Fact!] Jesus died to buy Your free ticket to Heaven IF?
No, I don't think it's coincidence. I'm saying that secular societies of the West have impacted Christianity far more than, say, society has impacted Islam. Islamic countries are theistic; their religion is their law (although some have two sets of laws). Look at how Islam has remain unchanged relative to Christianity. The culture and the dominant religion of the culture have co-create each other. I would add that I would certainly hope that humanity would grow up enough, fast enough, to have purely securely societies that do not have to kept in check by appeals to after-life punish (Jordan believes in hell, for example). A deference to a higher authority without God can lead to an entirely all-too-power State, but decentralization can also be a conscious choice.
You can "Say" that! BUT that doesn't make it so! What was the glue that brought waring suspicious tribes together, to form cohesive prospering Society's & advanced science? Jordan Peterson knows! My best example of a flourishing society was the Godley Pilgrims who dabble in proto P.C. Commie Marxist style collectivism in the 1620's it "impacted" them with death & disharmony! [Fact!] Thomas Bradford dumped that foolishness, realizing government can't play God, in a God/ Jesus engineered world! (I.E. that long predicted Jesus who was crucified died & rose from the dead as documented by many!) Bringing us to who engineered this massively complex symbiotic cosmoses & world? A magic lightning bolt? violating Einstein's 2nd law of thermodynamics, holding things go from a state order to disorder? Note: With no God/ Our Creator, (as our wise founders put it]) to believe in, one can be made to believe anything." That's not just me babbling it's instructions from the manufacturer's I.E God’s! Not from some Leftists dumb-Down liberal arts indoctrination collage for Cogs! I.E. the topic of so many book out now!
BUT who need him when you have confidence, & a degree in liberal arts, Right?
Thank you for this excellent article. My study of the work and teachings of David R Hawkins MD PhD has given me such comfort during these times. His 1995 groundbreaking work, Power Vs Force (from his doctoral dissertation Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis and Calibration of the Levels of Human Consciousness) has helped me see that logic, science and reason are fantastic for certain parameters in the world. I agree with you--absolutely one can be into science and faith. I also agree with Dr Hawkins that you can't think your way to God--it is a different level of consciousness. He created a Map of Consciousness which has helped me get a bead on myself and understanding the world I'm in. I pray for the highest good--I see that as vastly different than the common good. Many blessings to you and yours--all who are reading this.
@Kelly; David R Hawkins MD PhD and his followers weren't documented to have been put to death supporting his teachings! Many godless/ faith based religions can make you Feel good [in this short life] BUT for [scientifically documented & proven] everlasting long haul, Life, Jesus is your ONLY chance to get to Heaven! He & his follower were put to death supporting God’s claim! Would David R Hawkins MD PhD & followers do the same?/ Disavow his teaching under threat of death, I wonder? Do you?
Steve--best wishes to you!
As I wish all God's best! But why no comment on my post? I commented on yours!
@James Lyons! Who's rule & good, Hitler's, Stalin's Mao's, Biden's? [OR] "Our Creator's" [as Our Founder's put it, at risk of life] According to the best selling/ [scientifically proven [with the supporting odds of over, 1in10 to the 17th power] book], ever!
"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in HIM,/ [I.E. not evolution!] should not perish, but have everlasting life." [John 3:16] Realize the whole point of Godless Leftist's Satan inspired, dumb-down "education" is counter to all that, I.E. big government & big pharma is the only god you need, They say!
Steve, I don't have a response to your quoted scripture, but your text before it makes one of my points: both secular systems and religious systems can be used for evil. No single human should have the power of a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Our societies are currently very sick, and some see rationality as a potential path to sociological wellness. Others appeal to God. Peterson wants to dismiss Science as an arbiter of truth; it never was possible to use Science to prove ultimate truth... but his reasoning is "there are too many facts to rely on any of them for a solid basis for a government". I disagree. I offered some thoughts on a secular basis of rational ethics. If it makes sense and does not lead to the destruction of your right to worship freely, then you might consider it as a first draft that could be considered by believers and non-believers. If you see a flaw in it, other than it is not the word of God, please let me know.
It still comes down to who's "Rationality"/ Kant's Schopenhauer's Nietzsche" Marx? Kant did accurately predict mass death for dumbing God's inspiration (The same guy USA's founders based & built the greatest nation on God's green earth on! Were our founders wrong & ignorant for mentioning, quote: "Our Creator" [at risk of life?] What do you know that they didn't?
Outside of a creator God humans become gods and lousy ones at that. The human body is too complex to be formed by macro evolution. All parts hat to arrive at the exact right time to call it an eye.
With the Biblical God constantly kicked out of the picture the behavior of Fauci and others makes perfect sense to me.
When my atheist son called that his bike was stolen, I reminded him in his worldview of evolutionary biology and survival of the fittest that the other guy deserved the bike. I also told him if he had an issue with “thou shalt not steal”, he should re-examine his worldview because every atheist steals from God when it is convenient. Put another way, if you can say something is good or evil then you admit there are rules of engagement, but then deny the giver of the rules as to what is classified as good or evil. This is just simply denial of one’s own sin and the desire to be God. When a scientist shows me how he can remove the sun and hang it again then I will rethink my position. Until then I will read and follow my manufacturers instruction to avoid as much distress in this twisted world as possible.
👍
"in that as an evolutionary biologist, as a scientist, I should not dabble in the occult."
I take it here you mean "occult" as in "hidden," with no underlying meaning of "superstition."
"I won’t even debate his belief: the testability demarcation between Science and faith-based reasoning is clear"
I'm trying to flesh this out. From where I sit, science ultimately relies on testimony for experimental evidence and (Christian) faith likewise relies on testimony. Both therefore have similar epistemological bases for belief. (Yes, this means that you can't escape belief when you do science. You have to trust the testimony of others when they report data. Sure, any and all data can be tested for repeatability, given unlimited resources, but practically, some leap of faith is required.) So is there some overlap that may be tested?
Also, the Christian faith is not required necessarily for an ethical system, but it is likely superior to some. But how can that proposition be tested?
I'd say don't write when you're in pain! Or at least edit once you feel better. I agree with most of what you say here but after reading so many of your posts, I'd say this is a bumpy journey.
You've handled the discussion of God and the insurmountable problem of proving the existence of same extremely well. But I think you get a bit wobbly in approaching "religion."
The Soviet Union certainly had a state faith and all the necessary accoutrements, and the Russian people (and all the subject peoples forced into the Soviet) were already conditioned by traditional faiths to slide smoothly enough into substituting one dogma for another. But that's really irrelevant in looking at WWII. If you're facing a monstrous enemy you'll fight ferociously against it, and the Soviet Union, with the grimmest of good fortune, had enough manpower to keep hurling bodies into horrendous conflict and still have enough to replenish the losses. Hard to beat an opponent who has that dreadful advantage.
Something you and Peterson and Dawkins miss is that people (and all sentient creatures) are *born* with individual natures that are reinforceable but not, shall we say, imposable. I saw that as a parent; the impulses of great goodness were evident in my toddler child and honestly, I can't take very much credit for the rationality and powerful sense of natural ethics my now-adult kid possesses. My only role in that was providing a loving, nurturing environment so my child could reach full inherent potential. I have a strong belief in the existence of what, for the sake of convenience, we shall call God, though, at this stage in my life, without any dogma attached, and my child is an atheist. I exposed my child to my own beliefs and my child was exposed to the strong faith beliefs of others in the extended family, but I always emphasized that belief in anything is a matter of personal perceived truth that cannot be imposed from outside.
All societies of creatures--from insect to human--organize into hierarchies and one may say that the alpha pair of wolves are deities to the pack. It's lonely to reject authority, it reduces one's chances of survival, and being shunned out of the group can be fatal. It's a real wonder that so many individuals from the beginning of time have had the courage and will to diverge from the directed path.
Anyway "religion" is just a shortcut word. Everything is resources and the power to accumulate them, keep them and dole them out as is politically advantageous to yourself. Everything else, as is said, is commentary.
Scott, I appreciate your input. However, there have been thousands of scientists who have followed the tenets of science, not cheated, not conducted fraud, discovered new things about the universe in the world around us, and believed in God. As an empiricist I have to say therefore it is possible for a human being to be an objective scientist and to have faith. I'm not seeking approval from those you call idiots, I am merely applying the central tenet of objective empirical observation and dry conclusions from what can obviously be seen. There is reliable ample data and evidence that your position is incorrect. Of course that is not to say that I agree with her particular belief, but then scientists who have faith in different date he's also disagreed on certain fundamentals, no don't they? All in all I do believe you've missed the point of the article.
Yes. Faith alone cannot reveal empirical truth. It is illogical to expect that it could.
I would argue that Science can, at best, only arrive at empirical falsehoods. Hence the requirement for “testable”. I would also argue that there’s no such thing as empirical truth. IMO, Science is, at its best, only asymptomatic to the truth.
In the end, everything in the sciences can be traced back to beliefs/values. Beliefs/values can only be justified, not deduced. You deduce/reason *from* beliefs/values, not to them. Whether one practices a religion or doesn’t, whether one does science or doesn’t, whether one does both or does neither, failure to recognize where the boundaries are between one’s beliefs and one’s reason leads to dogma. IMO, dogma is the big bad wolf. I really appreciate that the article attempts to take great care to avoid dogma and mockery.
It is fair to hold organizations such as NIH to their charter.
I agree that children can be born with the potential for inherent traits, but I bet your children are more rational and more even-keeled because you didn't burn your house down, or invite drug dealers in, or have it shot up; you didn't abuse them and so they could develop to meet their inborn potential. I don't dismiss that. But we can also recognize that children can only come to know the God (or Gods) to which they are introduced; the phenotypic plasticity of faith is worth reflecting upon, as it is an example of an inherent trait, worth protecting and worth protecting from hijack by power technocratic interlopers.
My child was introduced to my belief in God, and was very close to my mother and her friends and their rabbi etc. etc. But I always made clear that belief can't be imposed from outside but must be felt from inside. And my child had a variety of school friends, many of whom followed faiths not in our family's (maternal and paternal different) faith traditions.
People may be inherently good; inherently bad; or inherently persuadable because of inherent weakness of character. Nurture and the larger environment play their part. But no one is a blank or fuzzy slate.
Thank you Steve. I did not ask you to comment on my post. Since you asked--I don't wish to engage with comments such as yours and especially those that are closed ended questions. I wish you all the best, now kindly leave me be.
No wonder! All dumb down "educated" Libs & Dems [I.E. the topic of so many book out now] can't support their critical thinking free, ramblings, why is that?
The problem isn’t the argument but the approach. Many people don’t want to engage with someone engaging in this way. Whether it’s consciously known or not, the tone is aggressive and appears to come from a place of anger. This was the point of calling them “closed-ended questions”. It’s like holding a gun and asking, “do you feel lucky?” No one wonders why the one being asked doesn’t engage. The “questioner” is too volatile and the “conversation” is likely to be a waste of time. The purpose of my engaging you with my comment is that I’m hoping you’re simply ignorant of how the comments read to others. If you’re fully aware of the present social dynamic, then that makes you a troll. Which means you know why people aren’t engaging.
No dumb-down "educated"/ Godless fools Can't "engage" rationally, if one asks non P.C. question! [Fact!] He couldn't answer me, so triggered you go off on a irrelevant tangent! [Is it about me mentioning God to James the empiricist?] In response to his take on "rules & good"! [No trolling involved] with my, "Who's rules & good, Hitler's, Stalin's Mao's, Biden's? [OR] "Our Creator's" [as Our Founder's put it, at risk of life]
Looks like he pulled his comment and ramble on with your silly haughty & rude comment! Could you respond to my question, above? I bet not! I DO wish YOU all God's best! Good luck I await your relevant answer! Goo dluck!!! Steve Mitzner
Some good points James.. Tho I think the definition of free will being used is a very vague one. Ultimately a scientist can't believe in free will as defined as will that does not depend on conditions.
As for the benefit of religion on morality, i do believe that religion can be very beneficial, but it does depend on which religion and how it is interpreted. The Golden Rule is not entirely useful, since some people are into S&M. A masochist would apply the golden rule by hurting people...
I am partial to Buddha's teachings. There's no need for a creator God to explain anything nor to create a moral system. We just need to understand that the path to the highest happiness requires being compassionate. It is a universal law. A masochist may disagree with this law, but that is because they are not seeing correctly, from the buddhist POV.
As for the particular details of how to be compassionate, those are not possible to define for every situation. For example, is it compassionate to be a soldier and defend your country against invaders? Even Buddha had some conflicting feelings. He said soldiers would go to hell for killing (unless they were able to become awakened to no-self before death), but on the other hand he said they were necessary to protect the noble peaceful folk...
What a complex life this is. 🙏
The best selling book ever, tells [some of us] "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world,/ [happiness] and lose his own soul." I.E. For All eternity! I.E. an eternity in Hell vs Heaven! With "Our Creator" [as our founding fathers put it!]
What do you know, that they didn't? Please don't parrot, Deist! Most weren't!
The evolution of the Golden Rule: Old Testament - do unto others as they have done unto you (an eye for an eye); New Testament - do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Today - do unto others before they do unto you.
Wow, what a read- I will reread this one. Brought back to mind Huston Smith's teachings- especially your mentioning of the Golden Rule and the commonalities in religions....Thank you for the always thought provoking and helpful material you provide.
Thank you, Kelly. Glad to have been part of your day.
It's a stark display of Jordan Peterson's limitations as a thinker that he can't make any room in his mind for a genuine rational ethic.
For my part, I believe that the true and proper ethos of science, and the proper ethos in general, are essentially one in the same, a case I make here: https://reasonandliberty.com/rl
For example, we should expect of our closest friends, our legal system, and our science, all these same things: sincerity, which is saying what we mean and meaning what we say, which has to mean being logical; honesty; willingness to consider any and all evidence, even evidence that contradicts our present beliefs; integrity; respect for individual rights. One cannot be a good scientist, and also deny this ethos. Nor a good friend, nor a good judge or legislator. Furthermore, we can vindicate such ethos in rational terms.
Well put.
Agreed