Originally Posted by
Dodo25
I didn't see anyhting that'd render my argument completely flawed. But you're right, your argument is of course worth discussing. And so is Rores28's objection.
The solution is education. And education doesn't work if there's fundamentalist religion. And as long as there is 'moderate religion', the fundamentalist don't experience enough pressure to let go of their extreme beliefs.
And again, there's the logical pathway to violence. Certainly, sentiments like nationalism and anger can lead to violence. Yet religion actually tells you what to do. It tells you precisely how to execute the women that was raped (if she didn't scream loud enough). It tells you what precisely will happen when one dies a martyr. Or (now Christianity, not Islam) it tells you precisely what will happen when Jesus comes back (which 20% of Americans are convinced will happen DURING THEIR LIFETIME). There are 20% of people in the world's most militarily powerful country that would take the outbreak of World War III as a happy event, the beginning of Armageddon, the coming of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
education doesn't change human nature, dress a chimp in a tux, its still a chimp. Your logical pathway to violence is true but it applies just as well to nationalism. The Furher demands expects it of us ! was just as powerful as It is what God wishes of us ! You committed a logical fallacy there, just because 20% belief the resurrection shall take place in their life time DOES NOT EQUAL 20% are happy to have WWIII. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, if people cannot do it with religion, they will do it with state or nation or race or gender, as the 20th century has so kindly thought us.
I don't think love is that dangerous, yet apart from this I do agree with you.
You dont think, I do think - both of us have just as much right to claim said opinion in this regard
We are far from any balance. Extremism also exists in Christianity. Even in a comparatively educated country like Switzerland, 25% of people don't accept evolution. This might not seem like a 'dangerous thing', yet it does undermine education and leads to an anti-scientific attitude.
Have you ever entertained the thought that 'extremists' are the only believers that aren't hypocrites? At least they ACTUALLY BELIEVE what their holy texts state. Most moderate believers haven't even read the Bible/Qu'ran, and if they have, they just ignore and rationalize large parts of it.
What you say here would be completely correct if people were all of the same intellect, but they are not, there have always been and always shall be idiots, that is a fact, unless someone decides to launch an intelligence genocide.
And for the last time, atheism is no a faith and not a religion. It's as much a religion as 'not collecting comics' is a hobby. If atheism was based on faith, one would base it on faith to not believe in pink unicorns or Narnia in your wardrobe.
Atheism is belief in no god, which is a belief, and not a fact, so yes in some regards it can be deemed a fait. I am personally atheistic my self, though I often wander around in deism and then back to atheism, like a ping pong ball. However saying unicorns and the existence of god have the same probability is flawed. The existence of Unicorns and God as depicted in the Bible, probably do have the same probability, but a God as perceived in other relligions such as Taoism and Budishm, or even Deism, forces one to wander on such abstract an unknown plains of the cosmos that speculations and imagination are the only things which could allow us to comprehend the immensity of such a notion.
On Religion I agree with principles of what you say. However you say remove religion and everything is good, I say remove religion and as history has shown people just replace it with another word, and the same evils are committed except under a new cause.
"Compassion? A sense of duty? Having the priviledge of studying the fruits of thousands of years of human culture and using them humanely."
Rores28 made an excellent argument in favor of my claim about motivation. I think the 'right people' would be willing to do the job. Democracy is founded on 'idealism' as well, does your argument prove that it must lead to atrocities?
His description of the right people is just as likely to attract Stalins and Hitlers as it is to attract George Washingtons. It's a bit like russian roulette that way.
You fail to make an important distinction. All the atrocities were based on WRONG BELIEFS. Communism just doesn't work, especially if one doesn't even follow what Marx wrote and tries to 'accelerate' the process, as Stalin and Mao did. And the German 'Arian race' is not superior to other humans, there's no ethical justification for that. Also, the Jews did not kill Jesus, and they most likely did not poison any water sources. And even if 'some Jews killed Jesus' and 'some Jews poison water', that wouldn't justify holding all of them accountable would it?
So your beliefs are right but that of all the men in the past were wrong ? All Ideals are beautiful on paper but on practice they DONT work. in the last 3000 years of human history all attempts to create utopias ended in dystopias, but you somehow are above reality ? wrong beliefs never start as wrong, they just get corrupted because, there is always one visionary who see the truth, but his pure message reaches the masses which don't have his insight and they **** it up. So the only utopia which can work is a one man utopia. I mean look at christianity, Jesus, a great man, one of the greatest men humanity has had, however I don't see him at his desk creating the plans for the Inquisition, Slavery of Blacks...and all the other countless **** ups.
Also the nazi's eugenics program was based on wrong assumptions and was not justifiable by an utilitarian approach to ethics (even more so by a Kantian one of course).
How do we know our assumptions are not wrong ? Science is in continual change every year we learn that we were wrong before.
You can't just declare it 'deemed to fail' without making that important distinction and actually look at it closely.
Good point. The problem with any 'committee' instead of a sole ruler is that discussions take time. My hope is that on many issues, the answer is relatively obvious. I think there a 'peaks on a moral landscape' which can be found by logical and analysis, and different individuals with knowledge as perfect as possible would come up with similar solutions.
Again, I never said I was fully convinced with my suggestion. My initial statement was to 'research the possiblity of such a form of government'. I think it's worth it, democracy is far from perfect. We need good leaders to solve problems like i.e. energy and resources.
You are just describing democracy here, the same identical democracy the USA was founded on.
As of now, it couldn't work because of religion. As soon as a government might make decisions like legalizing euthanasia or confirming Roe v. Wade, some fundamentalist Christians would likely react with terrorism. The first thing that needs to be done is 'critical thinking classes' in all schools as well as a change in education policy so that people don't learn WHAT to think but HOW to think.
How many individuals do you imagine would put forth the effort and the expense of medical school and residency if a doctor were paid the same as a school teacher or an office clerk? You are suggesting a ruler... a leader of a nation... with all that entails... the stress, the long hours, the time spent away from the family, the lack of privacy... and for little or no personal reward. The reality is that those willing to do the job under such conditions probably aren't the best qualified, and the best qualified aren't likely to be willing to do the job under those conditions. Of course Plato's solution was to essentially "draft" the philosopher kings... force them into doing the job as a great noble sacrifice due to society. What a noble idea. The poor philosopher suffering for the sake of humanity.
Reply With Quote
