Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I personally am fond of the term "apatheists" myself.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at August 16, 2006 02:27 PM

I sometimes refer to myself as a "fundamentalist agnostic" just to watch people's head explode.

Posted by Larry J at August 16, 2006 02:40 PM

Then there are those of us (a growing number from what I've read) that have faith, but no religion. Not close to atheism, but more athe-religion.

Posted by Mac at August 16, 2006 02:45 PM

And then there are the devout prosletyzing skeptics. James (the soi desant amazing) Randi is a prime example.

Posted by triticale at August 16, 2006 05:20 PM

Agnostics -> hopeful
Atheists -> hopeless

Or more seriously an agnostic says "I don't know the face of God and I don't believe you do either", (but maybe when I die I'll find out that it wasn't really a complete waste of time)

An atheist says "When I die the Universe ends"

Posted by Kevin B at August 16, 2006 05:26 PM

Actually, this particular atheist says that "when I die, I'm dead". Whether the Universe continues or not (an unprovable assertion from my POV) is irrelevant.

Alas, atheists are generally quiet people who just want to be left alone. Consequently the loudmouths and nitpickers who think that freedom of religion equates with freedom FROM religion get all the press.

As for why I believe there's no god (or other supernatural entity/phenomena) it's simple. There's plenty of evidence that claims made by religions have been wrong. The Earth is not the center of the Universe (a meaninless location in a centerless continuum), the evidence points to evolution rather than special creation of life, etc. The lousy track record of religion, coupled with the non-falsifiable nature of claims of the supernatural, make the word "god" basically meaningless. Disbelief makes more sense to me than waffling pretension that meaningless noise might actually describe the fundamental nature of reality. Next people will claim the universe is the result of the Great Green Arkleseizure mating with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove them wrong!

Posted by Jason Bontrager at August 16, 2006 05:42 PM

Alas, atheists are generally quiet people who just want to be left alone.

No, that would be skeptics/agnostics. Atheists are people who want to convert everyone to their belief that there is no God, and are offended if there is some governmental implication that there is one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2006 05:59 PM

“They fervently believe (unprovably) that there is no God.”

What makes you think that the non existence of God is unprovable?

At such transcendental levels proof becomes a very slippery notion however I would find it difficult to accept Godel’s theorem: “there is always a statement about natural numbers which is true, but which cannot be proven in the system” without also accepting the non existence of God.

A second one: “How does God know God knows anything?” In order to fully understand a system one has to have a complete model of that system. For God to fully understand God’s self, (a requirement for being God), God would have to have a complete model of God and would therefore have to be bigger than God.

And a third one: I perceive something therefore something exists, (a more accurate form of Descarte’s I think therefore I am). I do not perceive myself as God therefore God is not everything therefore God is not without limit therefore God is not God. Basically, any independence from God infers that God is not everything. I kind of like this one, solipsism other than by God disproves God. :-) If God is not everything then God is just a god, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

The usual response to all this is that God is God, God can do anything. Which is roughly equivalent to proving that 2=1 by first assuming that 2=1.

Now invoking Descarte’s evil demon, calling it God and not assuming that it would not deceive me one might consider that God could play all sorts of nasty tricks on itself. Doing mean things to humans, (which must be a part of God), like deceiving parts of itself into thinking that it does not necessarily exist.

I am not sure if one can ultimately prove that God does or does not exist but it seems to me that if one were to invoke a science level of proof then one can probably prove that God does not exist, and that is reality enough for me. Hence I was once agnostic and am now mostly an atheist. The human mind being more like a community than a lone individual it is perfectly acceptable to hold contradictory views at once – basically a PWM of contradictory beliefs, so I can hold both view points simultaneously. :-)

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 16, 2006 06:31 PM

Whoops should have read: "How does God know God knows everything?”

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 16, 2006 06:34 PM

What makes you think that the non existence of God is unprovable?

The fact that the non-existence of anything is unprovable, logically.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2006 06:35 PM

the non-existance of anything is unprovable, logically.

So you can't logically prove the non-existence of Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? Harry Potter? You must subscribe to a different kind of logic than I do.

Posted by Anonymous Coward #521 at August 16, 2006 06:58 PM

Heh.. "apatheists". I like that one. I think I'll use it. It captures a certain sentiment quite nicely.

However, when asked about my own personal beliefs or guiding moral philosophy, I usually default to "secular humanism". Basically, it's alright to be nice to other people just because they are human too, and it is possible to be a decent person without having to invoke the Word of God or saving of souls. My behavior is simply the most socially responsible (and usually socially acceptable) course of action.

Posted by Eric at August 16, 2006 07:01 PM

So you can't logically prove the non-existence of Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? Harry Potter?

No.

I can't.

Nor can you.

You must subscribe to a different kind of logic than I do.

Apparently, yes. How do you prove a negative in your world?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2006 07:14 PM

Personally, I try to be a Reform Jew. But we're a pretty non-judgmental bunch, not far removed from the Unitarians. We have lots of committee meetings and such, we just serve ruggelah at our bake sales instead of cookies.

I've read my Book many times, and most other people's too, and I didn't find anything in anyone's texts that says "hate your neighbour." So I think, to be honest, that much of the world's misery is caused by people taking their religions way too seriously. Apatheism, in that context, is an advance.

So, I take my religion a little bit seriously, because it comforts me and had something to do with educating me, and teaching me how to think. There's lots of other ways to do that and I'm not so arrogant to think that my tribe has a monopoly on truth. But I don't buy in to the whole package. Ain't no way this girl's going to a mikvah, ever. Not that I disdain those who chose to.

Enh. Whatever. Anything on TV?

Posted by Jane Bernstein at August 16, 2006 07:33 PM

Rand wrote: “The fact that the non-existence of anything is unprovable, logically.”

By definition, God is an all encompassing “universal” theory, you only need to find one exception to that theory to logically prove that God is not true. God is not a “particular” one off independent finite instance of something, (like Santa Claus or whatever), that one can not logically disprove.

Having said that I can not prove the veracity of logic, I can not even prove that 2 does not equal 1. Popper resided at the University I attended during WWII, he left a lasting impression. Even my first year maths lecturer referred to mathematics as a system of theories, some pretty good theories, like 1+1=2, but nonetheless just theories. Real science is not based upon beliefs/facts or whatever the religiously inclined want to call them and oppress/subvert science with.

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 16, 2006 07:39 PM

How do you prove a negative in your world?

By showing that the world is not as it would be if the thing existed.

The existence of Santa Claus, for example, can be disproved by visiting the North Pole, instrumenting chimneys with cameras, etc.

Actually, all of the aforementioned things (Tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Harry Potter, and God) do exist in a sense, and they all share a set of properties that we associate with the class of things commonly known as fictional characters.

Of the many indications that all of the aforementioned are fictional is that they are purported to be able to produce effects that violate the laws of physics, a.k.a. doing magic or producing miracles (same thing). By definition nothing that violates the laws of physics can be part of physical reality.

Q.E.D.

(N.B. The jury is still out on space aliens, but recent SETI results indicate that they are fictional too.)

(N.B.2: Just because something is fictional does not mean that it cannot have a profound effect on someone's life.)

Posted by Anonymous Coward #521 at August 16, 2006 08:30 PM

Sounds like a bounch of semantical weasling in order to make your God Non-Proof.

You are arguing things ment as metaphor as if it has mathematical significance.

Please show me where in the Bible God claims to be Everything? He claims he is what he is and that he is the begining and the end but he does not claim to be everything.

God claims to have created everything(and does not state the exact process used) which is quite different for being everything. I have built many devices but am not those devices.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 16, 2006 08:37 PM

Pete Lynn, if I may humbly point out all you have done is possibly disproven one possible definition of God. There are many who do not believe that such a paradox exists. And as Rand states, it is impossible to prove non-existance of something - all you can do is prove that certain properties could not exist. For example, visiting the north pole might prove that Santa Claus doesn't live there - but it says nothing about his existence.

If we only know about God through man's experience and perceptions, then the only thing we know about God comes from a flawed source. It should not be surprising to find errors in that perception, then.

Feel free to believe as you will, of course. But if I tell you that Peter Lynn is a person living in the Hancock tower in Chicago, and then I go check and find him not there - all I have done is shown that my understanding of Peter Lynn is incorrect, not that he doesn't exist.

At least I hope so - are you still there??

Posted by David Summers at August 16, 2006 08:44 PM

I am all for gods and hope the human race can get there one day, but there is a world of difference between a god and God, the existence of which greatly changes how we should approach our lives. Gods are not all powerful, nor are they all knowing, gods can be wrong. Gods can also have vested interests which are not necessarily our own. Hence as powerful and all knowing as some gods might be, it would seem unwise to place total faith in them and worship them blindly, there is reason not to fully trust their actions or their words. The hierarchy of god entities is a very different society to that of God. Not that I have seen any good evidence to suggest that there are any gods hanging around just yet.

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 16, 2006 09:51 PM

I'm not an a-theist, I'm not a non-believer or an unbeliever. I'm a scientist. It's not a negative image of something else, it's not about not believing in some other religion(s), it's a positive thing that stands on its own independent of religion and belief.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at August 16, 2006 11:20 PM

Actually, calling yourself a Scientist (with a capital S to distinguish yourself from a scientist, who is someone who does science for a living and may or may not be a Scientist) is not a bad idea IMHO. See http://rondam.blog spot.com/2003/07/hello-world.html.

Posted by Ron Garret at August 17, 2006 12:07 AM

I personally am fond of the term "apatheists" myself.

The primary missions of the Church of Apatheism are:

.Get people to admit that they are indeed Apatheists.
.Spread the word and convert as many people as possible to the true religion.
.Instill pride and honor in answering correctly when someone asks the god question, i.e. Q: "Do you believe in God?" A: "I don't care!" (Better yet, "I don't care, you shouldn't either, and here's why.")
.Provide meeting places and forums for Apatheists, so that they don't feel alone in their thoughts or surrounded by the "quasi theists" in society.

The Church of Apatheism.

Posted by D Anghelone at August 17, 2006 05:27 AM

Rand, where are you getting your definition of an atheist? I thought I was one, until you stated that I have to go out and convert theists in order to be one. So I was forced to go to multiple on-line dictionaries to investigate. All of them, I think, allow for one to not believe in the existence of a God whether you're vocal about it or not. So I'm one of those quiet ones Jason referred to. I have no problem with people being theists. Why should I talk them out of it? Is your definition driven by being part of the weblog community, where you would encounter more outspoken atheists? Your question is still a good one, what should one call oneself in order to avoid being lumped with a group of people that irritate the rest of us. I considered calling myself a secular humanist for a while, but the mere fact that there are websites out there promoting it messed that up!

Posted by Scott at August 17, 2006 06:28 AM

"Atheists -> hopeless"

Not so. An atheist can still abstract or deny the self, living for others or the future, living to create or observe beauty, to probe mysteries, etc. Unlike egoistic types who are terrified at the prospect of extinction, people who can abstract their sense of self don't even comprehend the notion--existence becomes a continuum occupying the entire spectrum of experience rather than an objectified singular "mote" of the self.

When tied to perceiving the latter, one can easily comprehend the destruction and extinction of the self within its objective context, but when "I" becomes the totality of all awareness it's literally impossible to imagine its failure. Death is just as certain, but from your perspective it becomes only a word--you will never know death, never feel it approaching or yourself slipping away. The universe will just change, and change, and change, with no essential boundary points marking the transitions. Now, maybe I cheated a little by borrowing from Buddhist philosophy, but it's still technically atheist.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 06:50 AM

Jane says: I think, to be honest, that much of the world's misery is caused by people taking their religions way too seriously.

Religion is the problem. I think if people took their faith seriously and left the religion behind, things would be a little better.

Posted by Mac at August 17, 2006 06:58 AM

What a bunch of nonsense!

I've had alot of atheist friends, and they almost always viewed my christian beliefs as a sort of disease or mental disorder.

Taking "faith" seriously and leaving religion behind is a nice way for some people to feel good about themselves while believing in essentially nothing. It reminds me of an article I read on CNN a while back claiming that college students were very "spiritual" but not religious. What does being spiritual mean, exactly? Nothing. No system of belief or morality, and no accounting to anyone but yourself. I don't see that as too constructive.

The two most murderous ideologies of the 21st century were atheist: Nazism and communism. Nazi's were pretty spiritual, though. You know, believing in Nordic folklore and symbology. It was the religious nations that finally destroyed them. Thank God for that! It seems to me that history proves that much of the world's misery is caused by people turning away from religion (not necessarily Judeo-Christian, but may I also remind you just war theory was a christian invention).

I can at least respect agnosticism. No one can claim that they have never had doubt about God's existence. I don't know for sure. Athiests, in my experience, are just as dogmatic as fundamentalist evangelicals.

Posted by brent at August 17, 2006 07:25 AM

"Athiests, in my experience, are just as dogmatic as fundamentalist evangelicals."

How many atheists knock on your door at 7am on Sunday morning, stand on street corners haranguing pedestrians, weave atheism into their everyday discourse, and use every public speaking opportunity to expound on their beliefs? I have never seen nor heard of an atheist high school or college student using their graduation speech to deny God, or advocating that public schools teach children there is no God. There simply is no comparison: The most obnoxious atheists are at worst passive-aggressive, surly reactionaries to religious encroachment, while the worst evangelicals are militant totalitarians outraged by the very idea of freedom.

Posted by b at August 17, 2006 07:51 AM

What does activism have to do with dogma?

You're absolutely right, though. Atheists are too busy suing over crosses or stars in military memorials, trying to declare the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional, and making sure any alternative viewpoint is crushed out of political discourse by the government to worry about other people on an individual level.

Posted by brent at August 17, 2006 09:43 AM

Getting back to the original question, I think it would be better to just group them as agnostics and atheists seperately. They don't really have that much in common.

Some comments on posts here.

brent, you claim that atheists and I guess spiritists (or maybe animists?) don't have belief or moral systems. But they usually do. Like most people including the religious, their moral systems are social based. In other words, the group they are part of has some sort of moral system. It might not be a good system (eg, "don't rat to the police on a friend no matter what they did"), but it is there. And being an atheists or spiritualist means that you have a belief system by definition.

b, you ignore brent's fine counterexample of highly destructive atheists.

Ron, I have problems with "Science" (as opposed to science). The big one is that the scientific method is not very efficient. In particular, you might not get an answer in a timely manner. Second, scientific inquiries are notorious for introducing ethical dilemmas. How do you resolve these? Run experiments and pick from the category with the best outcomes?

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 17, 2006 09:44 AM

Karl,

Good points, all. I stand corrected with the belief system comment. Too bad your post wasn't a bit earlier. It probably would have calmed me down before my angrier response a few minutes ago.

My apologies to the board for my behavior.

Posted by brent at August 17, 2006 09:55 AM

Ron and Karl, using Science is especially bad in the light of the fact that 60% of scientists believe in a God of some type.

And as for proselyting, what do you guys think you are doing here? And at work? And with your friends? The difference is that we can't claim that your bothering us with your religios non-beliefs, because you don't see what your beliefs are...

Posted by David Summers at August 17, 2006 09:57 AM

How is a situation where a grad student sets up an ant farm and hold life and death over the ants differ from a situation where ants wander into the ant farm and there is no grad student to tend it? How would the ant experience be different?

My vote is for "bad tithings".

Posted by Sam Dinkin at August 17, 2006 10:13 AM

Brent says: Taking "faith" seriously and leaving religion behind is a nice way for some people to feel good about themselves while believing in essentially nothing.

Faith and religion are two separate things. Faith is a belief in a higher being and knowing that that being exists within yourself. Religion is a solely created my man bridge to understanding what he could not before. Religion can be warped and frayed. Faith can be lost or gained. Religion defines faith, but faith does not define religion. Religion was created by man. Faith you either have or acquire, not something you create.

Brent says: What does being spiritual mean, exactly? Nothing. No system of belief or morality, and no accounting to anyone but yourself. I don't see that as too constructive.

I disagree, but again, faith is not being spiritual. Faith is not a system of belief. Faith is not a system of morality either.

Posted by Mac at August 17, 2006 10:49 AM

As an atheist, I think I can answer the question. Atheists and agnostics are sometimes referred together as "freethinkers". In fact, several freethought churches have been started (I'm a member of the Houston Church of Freethought - hcof.org). All freethought churches usually include both atheists and agnostics. In fact, the North Texas Church of Freethought was featured on Morgan Spurlock's (yeah, I know he's not an unbiased observer) 30 days episode dealing with atheists/theists.

Posted by jschan at August 17, 2006 11:07 AM

http://rondam.blog spot.com/2005/09/metaphysics-of-chocolate.html

BTW, I am having to put a space in the above URL (which you will have to take out to view it) because Rand's comment system filters out the string "blog sp" (without the space of of course :-) as "inappropriate content".

Posted by Ron Garret at August 17, 2006 11:08 AM

Yes, Ron, I had to do that, because I was getting pounded by blog spot comment spam (hundreds a day).

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 17, 2006 11:13 AM

Ron and Karl, using Science is especially bad in the light of the fact that 60% of scientists believe in a God of some type.

That's why I distinguish a Scientist from a scientist. A scientist is someone who does science for a living. A Scientist is someone whose religion is scientism. A Scientist may or may not be a scientist, and vice versa. In fact, most Scientists are not scientists.

BTW, being a Scientist is not inconsistent with believing in a "God of some type", only with a God that violates the laws of physics.

Posted by Ron Garret at August 17, 2006 11:16 AM

Reason for believing that there is no God that violates the laws of physics (or that there is)?

I tend to like trying to boil things down to basic issues, if possible. I think Ron's comment that being a "Scientist" means not believing in a God that violates the laws of physics touches on one of these basic issues.

I'll put aside questions like "what are all the laws of physics?" And "If God exists and invented the laws, doesn't any of His violations thereof really constitute the creation or revelation of other physical laws?" I think the essence of the definition here is that a "Scientist" (captial S) believes in naturalism--everything that happens is preceeded by and results from natural laws operating in a mechanistic manner.

So here's the essential question: on what basis do we believe that what a "Scientist" (capital S) believes is true--that is, that everything that happens is a pure mechanistic chain of cause and effect based on natural laws.

(Random Heinlein aside, probably misquoted from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress": "Is a cat self aware? Almost certainly. How about a cockroach? How about humans? I don't know about you, Tsvorich [ugh--sp. sorry], but I am.")

Or, to flip it around, on what basis do we believe that everything that happens is NOT a pure mechanistic chain of cause and effect based on natural laws?

It's not a convincing answer on either side of the question to just say "it IS that way!" or "I've never seen anything myself to the contrary!"

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at August 17, 2006 03:49 PM

It is sad but true that religion is unto morality what intelligent design is to evolution. Many here seem to have forgotten that ethics is a discipline of science, well to most atheists and agnostics at any rate.

Like most atheists and agnostics I have no interest in oppressing others with my opinions, and have no vested interest in doing so. Except in so far as I do not wish to be oppressed by the religious beliefs of others nor caught up in their conflicts. Mostly we follow the path of appeasement and try to avoid confrontation – something religion pretty much evolved for. We also often attempt to sew doubt where ever we can so as to prevent others from placing us in any kind of “box” and creating laws to that end, a usual precursor to serious persecution. This can be mistaken for a love of argument, in reality it is an act of desperation. Most atheists and agnostics will not argue religion, unlike everyone else…

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 17, 2006 06:21 PM

Most atheists and agnostics will not argue religion, unlike everyone else…

Atheists (in the sense defined above) will, agnostics (or skeptics) will not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 17, 2006 06:25 PM

The same basis as any other religion: faith.

The big difference between my faith and other faiths is that mine requires less rationalization to reconcile with my perceptions. :-)

Posted by Ron Garret at August 17, 2006 06:55 PM

Ron, I read the "metaphysics of chocolate" article. And it doesn't address my point. It does discuss how ethical systems could evolve naturally which would be very helpful to building stable, consistent ethical systems, but not whether someone should or shouldn't do a particular act.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 17, 2006 07:19 PM

Me: “Most atheists and agnostics will not argue religion, unlike everyone else…”

Rand: “Atheists (in the sense defined above) will, agnostics (or skeptics) will not.”

Mostly not, atheism is a belief, not a religion, (perhaps excepting those who have recently fallen off the wagon and so can not help but think it is a religion - the rebelious reactionaries).

Atheists are not a collective unified and well funded group intent on working together to defend their patch. They are a small minority that tend to act alone as individuals and mostly keep very quiet so as not to draw attention to themselves. They do not get together at atheist churches every Sunday, pay tithes, nor devote hours a week to learning their arguments. They do not organize themselves into large voting blocks and have public arguments in the halls of power.

When it comes to religious argument, God is on the side of the big battalions, not atheism.

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 17, 2006 07:37 PM

Rand said: Atheists (in the sense defined above) will [argue religion], agnostics (or skeptics) will not.

I have yet to argue religion in this thread. I tried occasionally back when I posted to Usenet, but that was long ago. I've stated my disbelief and some of the reasons for it. Other than that I've just lurked.

I will note that this thread didn't start with an atheistic attack on religion, but rather an attack on atheists as more fervent than theists. You'll always find obnoxious loutmouths in any given belief system, but to tar all of us with that brush is unwarranted. And before the Nazi/Commie anti-atheist argument is brought up again, so what? Neither Naziism nor Communism was primarily about spreading unbelief. The former was about German nationalism and racism, the latter about a profoundly flawed economic theory. Both were ultimately about power. Either could've incorporated traditional religion quite easily but chose instead to deify the race/party. Just another belief system.

Is the above what you mean by "proselytiz[ing] endlessly to convert others to their belief"? Because frankly I don't care whether you believe in a god or not, and I'll thank you kindly to return the lack of interest.

Posted by Jason Bontrager at August 17, 2006 07:51 PM

"Atheists are too busy suing over crosses or stars in military memorials"

The litigious ones should be more reasonable, but the law is clearly on their side. They're not violating anyone's rights like the Bush administration refusing to allow pagan stars (pentacles) on the graves of wiccan soldiers.

"trying to declare the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional"

That would be because it is. Why do you not distinguish between people who are overzealous in wanting the law enforced and those blatantly violating the Constitution on behalf of their religion?

"and making sure any alternative viewpoint is crushed out of political discourse"

What, like teaching Creationism in schools? Give me a break. Atheists who sue over any religious symbolism in taxpayer-funded media are overly sensitive; believers who use political power to advance a sectarian religious agenda at the expense of other people are against basic values of liberty.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 08:59 PM

Quote from Brent: "My apologies to the board for my behavior."

Well it looks like one bad boy is going to get a lump of deer turds in his stocking this year.

Posted by Santa Clause at August 17, 2006 11:34 PM

I am a second generation, do not believe in anything person. I did not just come out in some teenage act of rebellion. This is a bit like being black, gay, a women or whatever, belief has always been a completely alien concept to me – even at a young age it just did not fit. I am just plain different, it is not that I have a different belief system to everyone else but that I do not have any belief system. Hence I do not believe in oppressing others with beliefs, or non beliefs, whatever the case may be.

I suspect there would be something of an out cry if the words, “In gays we trust” was printed on US money, or if the president ended his speeches with “whites bless America”. If only the majority based institutional prejudice against differing beliefs, or the lack thereof, were that superficial. Laws that apply to everyone are voted in on a religious mandate, even though that religious mandate is not universal. For example, stem cell research, I have no objection if people who disagree with it do not fund it through their tax dollars, and would actively support their right not to do so, but it does bother me that via majority rule they force others who do not share their beliefs to do likewise. This is like a white majority voting in a racially discriminative law, democratically right but fundamentally wrong.

In no way am I advocating a black panthers type movement against discrimination on the basis of belief, (beliefism?), but I am desperately looking forward to the day when the non beliefist “pilgrims” can set out to settle space. Till then, I am content with a course of appeasement. This is a fight that would place one in the middle of the battleground between world religions, better to endure on the fringes than go there.

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 18, 2006 04:03 AM

It's hard to talk about "a particular act" in the abstract. It is true that Science does not (and cannot) provide an algorithm for making moral decisions, but neither does any other religion. Big-S Science says: trust your moral intution (as opposed to, say, holy writings). This point of view is actually consistent with some non-Scientific moralities: we have reliable knowledge of good and evil resident within us. What difference does it make whether it arose through evolution or because our ancestors ate of the Fruit of the Tree?

Posted by Ron Garret at August 18, 2006 11:01 AM

Post a comment