A fascinating discussion by Professor Dale Kuehne on "where the world is heading". Very abstract and theoretical in it's descriptions of the world, and no doubt some will object at his generalisations. But there's something valuable if you're willing to look underneath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogUTfxCu-uU
Showing posts with label moral values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moral values. Show all posts
Monday, October 14, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Science and Ethics
A few weeks ago John Dickson finally made it onto ABC's Q and A program. This was a long time coming because, being a big fan of Dickson, I'd noticed people suggesting he should go on for quite a while. Notably, after Cardinal Pell's appearance with Richard Dawkins.
I highly recommend watching the episode- it covered topics such as what Christianity says about science, what science says about ethics, the teaching of creationism in schools and more. It's good to see Dickson showing the Australian public a reflective, thought out, reasonable Christian position on many issues, in contrast to the brilliant mind of a brilliant scientist appearing unintelligent and poisoned by his scientistic philosophical bias.
Anyway, I have a minor claim to fame from last week's episode- a tweet of mine appeared on the show! See the above video at 8:22.
My tweet was:
Science helped create the atomic bomb. Ethics?
To elaborate, my tweet was prompted by Krauss's response to the first question of the night, where the audience member asked where our values will come from if we place our future hope in science instead of religion, given that science has no ethical boundaries. Krauss's response was incredibly disingenuous. He claimed that truth telling and full disclosure is central to science, and therefore science promotes ethics.
If Osama Bin Laden orchestrates a terrorist attack and then admits his involvement, is he then being ethical because he's telling the truth? No. Ethics is much bigger than that. Science tells us what is (eg: "This is a cell") but it cannot tell us what we ought to do ("We ought to save lives by cloning this cell"). The motivations for deciding what we should or should not do with information must come from somewhere external to the impersonal scientific method. In other words, even if science can consistently manage to progressively find the truth about the universe, this doesn't mean it can then tell us what to do with that truth. It tells us nothing about that.
I highly recommend watching the episode- it covered topics such as what Christianity says about science, what science says about ethics, the teaching of creationism in schools and more. It's good to see Dickson showing the Australian public a reflective, thought out, reasonable Christian position on many issues, in contrast to the brilliant mind of a brilliant scientist appearing unintelligent and poisoned by his scientistic philosophical bias.
Anyway, I have a minor claim to fame from last week's episode- a tweet of mine appeared on the show! See the above video at 8:22.
My tweet was:
Science helped create the atomic bomb. Ethics?
To elaborate, my tweet was prompted by Krauss's response to the first question of the night, where the audience member asked where our values will come from if we place our future hope in science instead of religion, given that science has no ethical boundaries. Krauss's response was incredibly disingenuous. He claimed that truth telling and full disclosure is central to science, and therefore science promotes ethics.
If Osama Bin Laden orchestrates a terrorist attack and then admits his involvement, is he then being ethical because he's telling the truth? No. Ethics is much bigger than that. Science tells us what is (eg: "This is a cell") but it cannot tell us what we ought to do ("We ought to save lives by cloning this cell"). The motivations for deciding what we should or should not do with information must come from somewhere external to the impersonal scientific method. In other words, even if science can consistently manage to progressively find the truth about the universe, this doesn't mean it can then tell us what to do with that truth. It tells us nothing about that.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Rally for Nothing in Particular
Larry Taunton wonders what an atheist world would really be like.
But in comparison what is atheism and what is it's history?
It gets worse...
In a tweet he posted a day before the reason rally, Taunton issued a challenge.
The Reason Rally's stated purpose is to "promote secular values." Other than no God, I challenge atheists to name one of these "values."
As I've discussed before, it is reasonable to wonder whether there is even such thing as "secular values" or whether secularists are just hijacking values that were imported into modern day culture by Christianity and then claiming those values as their own.
It's also clear that many atheists have a rosy view of atheism and secularism, such that they fail to confront potential logical inferences arising from their own views, instead choosing to promote a version of secularism that is more in line with Christian thought. Julian Baggini is one such example. John Dickson's comment in his brilliant essay on religious violence, that I have quoted before, is worth repeating. In fact Dickson himself recently re-tweeted it.
Only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.
Christianity, whatever the faults of its adherents, has a rich intellectual tradition that has a comprehensive view of life. It has given rise to the West as we know it. Our laws, arts, governments, and the very framework of our thought find their meaning in Christianity. Take for example the central premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.”
As Indian philosopher and social reformer Vishal Mangalwadi points out, there is nothing self-evidential about the equality of men.
But in comparison what is atheism and what is it's history?
Atheism, by contrast, has no creed, no principles, no philosophy, and can give no guidance. It is but to have a settled disposition on a single question: is there a God?
As my friend the late atheist and journalist Christopher Hitchens conceded, “atheism is nothing in itself.”
That not withstanding, atheism does have a history—a bad history. By conservative estimates, the twentieth century, an experiment in secular governance, witnessed the deaths of more than 100 million people. That is more than all the religious wars in all previous centuries combined.
It gets worse...
Proponents of a society free from religious influence can point to no nation or civilization that was founded upon atheism that we might call even remotely good. The story of those regimes is well documented and may be summarized in a word—murderous.
What they can point to are secular societies that are still running off of their accumulated Christian capital. But beware. When the fumes in that tank are spent, tyranny cannot be far away.
In his farewell address, George Washington offered a sober warning: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” This he deduced without the benefit of seeing the twentieth century. The eighteenth, it seems, was enough.
In his farewell address, George Washington offered a sober warning: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” This he deduced without the benefit of seeing the twentieth century. The eighteenth, it seems, was enough.
So as the rally for nothingness meets to celebrate, well, nothing in particular, reflect for a moment on the world they would give us. One need not imagine it. It has been done.
Larry Taunton, well said. In a tweet he posted a day before the reason rally, Taunton issued a challenge.
The Reason Rally's stated purpose is to "promote secular values." Other than no God, I challenge atheists to name one of these "values."
As I've discussed before, it is reasonable to wonder whether there is even such thing as "secular values" or whether secularists are just hijacking values that were imported into modern day culture by Christianity and then claiming those values as their own.
It's also clear that many atheists have a rosy view of atheism and secularism, such that they fail to confront potential logical inferences arising from their own views, instead choosing to promote a version of secularism that is more in line with Christian thought. Julian Baggini is one such example. John Dickson's comment in his brilliant essay on religious violence, that I have quoted before, is worth repeating. In fact Dickson himself recently re-tweeted it.
Only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The Problem with "Universal" Values
Atheists regularly claim that they support "Universal values". This claim is often made in the context of a Christian arguing that they support "Christian values" like love, goodwill and caring for each other. The atheist will reply with something like this: "How dare you claim those as Christian values! I support those values too, and they've been around since before your ridiculous religion even got started". Sound familiar? The implication here is that those values fit just as comfortably within the atheist's way of thinking as they do within the Christian's way of thinking. I would like to challenge that implication.
Here I think we have a problem that we could call the social conditioning problem. We are all conditioned, to some degree by the time and place in which we live, and the influences of our society do impact on the lens with which we view the world. Everyone who lives in a Western Country lives in a location whose heritage has been strongly influenced by Christianity. So atheists have been socially conditioned to accept values that we take for granted in our Western way of thinking, which has historically been influenced by Christianity. In other words, a large part of the reason why the atheist claims that Christian values fit in with their way of thinking is because their way of thinking has been indirectly influenced by...you guessed it, Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins has referred to himself as a "cultural christian". Professor Edwin Judge makes the following comments in an interview entitled Christianity and the 21st Century:
"In Australia, very many of the ideals of the general culture, Australian values so-called, clearly come from that tradition (Edit note- ie: Christian tradition), and what the churches need to do, and what indeed the public needs to do is to inform itself better of the true sources of these things. The matter should be studied historically"
"We stand in this dual heritage from Greece and Israel but people have lost awareness of the sources of it".
"We must make the study of the Biblical tradition available to everybody, not just under church auspices but part of the commitment of our culture as a whole to the historical study of it not as a matter of personal belief but as a matter of explanation for why our values are such as they are. We should not accept that they can be declared, as people do, to be secular values".
He concludes:
"The true source of the value system needs to be clear. Everybody needs to know that, particularly people who have no church connection".
The atheist must account for the origin or basis of their values- do they have a consistent basis within their own worldview for exclusively supporting those values? Christians certainly do. The entire Bible has a consistent theme of putting others first and loving others, right through from the ten commandments to Jesus and through to the writings of Paul in the New Testament (for example see Romans 12: 9-21). When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied with the following:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40).
But what about the atheist? Can the atheist naturalist honestly claim a similar consistent basis for their values within their own view of the world? I'm inclined to agree with John Dickson, who says the following:
if human beings are only accidents in an unknowing universe, how can this choice be anything more than a mere preference, a product of ‘feelings’ as atheist Bertrand Russell famously acknowledged? On what grounds can the atheist speak rationally of the high and equal value of the poor or the weak or the asylum seeker?
Dickson concludes:
only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.
So do the values of love, compassion and goodwill really fit just as comfortably within the atheist's way of thinking as they do within the Christian's way of thinking? History and common sense would suggest otherwise.
Here I think we have a problem that we could call the social conditioning problem. We are all conditioned, to some degree by the time and place in which we live, and the influences of our society do impact on the lens with which we view the world. Everyone who lives in a Western Country lives in a location whose heritage has been strongly influenced by Christianity. So atheists have been socially conditioned to accept values that we take for granted in our Western way of thinking, which has historically been influenced by Christianity. In other words, a large part of the reason why the atheist claims that Christian values fit in with their way of thinking is because their way of thinking has been indirectly influenced by...you guessed it, Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins has referred to himself as a "cultural christian". Professor Edwin Judge makes the following comments in an interview entitled Christianity and the 21st Century:
"In Australia, very many of the ideals of the general culture, Australian values so-called, clearly come from that tradition (Edit note- ie: Christian tradition), and what the churches need to do, and what indeed the public needs to do is to inform itself better of the true sources of these things. The matter should be studied historically"
"We stand in this dual heritage from Greece and Israel but people have lost awareness of the sources of it".
"We must make the study of the Biblical tradition available to everybody, not just under church auspices but part of the commitment of our culture as a whole to the historical study of it not as a matter of personal belief but as a matter of explanation for why our values are such as they are. We should not accept that they can be declared, as people do, to be secular values".
He concludes:
"The true source of the value system needs to be clear. Everybody needs to know that, particularly people who have no church connection".
The atheist must account for the origin or basis of their values- do they have a consistent basis within their own worldview for exclusively supporting those values? Christians certainly do. The entire Bible has a consistent theme of putting others first and loving others, right through from the ten commandments to Jesus and through to the writings of Paul in the New Testament (for example see Romans 12: 9-21). When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied with the following:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40).
But what about the atheist? Can the atheist naturalist honestly claim a similar consistent basis for their values within their own view of the world? I'm inclined to agree with John Dickson, who says the following:
if human beings are only accidents in an unknowing universe, how can this choice be anything more than a mere preference, a product of ‘feelings’ as atheist Bertrand Russell famously acknowledged? On what grounds can the atheist speak rationally of the high and equal value of the poor or the weak or the asylum seeker?
Dickson concludes:
only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.
So do the values of love, compassion and goodwill really fit just as comfortably within the atheist's way of thinking as they do within the Christian's way of thinking? History and common sense would suggest otherwise.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Against Inaccurate Accusations: Don't impose your values on others
In this post I'll be examining the claim that one set of values should not be imposed on another person. A good example of such a context where this accusation is made would be where someone is arguing for a particular law or policy to be instituted.
To dissect this accusation, let's start by examining it further. The claim is basically that one person's values should not be imposed on another person's, because that person has the right to their own values. However, my response is simple: It's ok to impose your values on others because everyone imposes values on others, and it'd be impossible to live life without imposing some of your values on others.
Allow me to give a couple of examples to support my statement. Firstly, consider governments and law. In Australia, various laws exist because they've been passed as bills in parliament, or because they've been established by case law, or what have you. The end result of those various processes is that some things are illegal and some things are legal. The government (through the court system) enforces many propositions and values: murder is wrong and deserves to be heavily penalised, rape is wrong and also deserves serious penalty, marijuana use is not allowable. And so on. The point is: The government is imposing their values on everyone, regardless of whether those individuals agree or not.
Now let's take this to a personal level. Lets imagine you live in a sharehouse, with a few housemates. You wake in the middle of the night, hearing a clanging sound. One of your housemates wakes up too. You go downstairs and discover a robbery is taking place- they've got a bag full of something sounding like jewellery, and are looking through your dvd collection, adding to their bag of goodies. Now imagine you and your housemate physically apprehend the robber and in doing so, hurt him so much that he requires stitches. In the final anaylsis, what have you done? You didn't like the fact that someone was stealing your valuables and intruding on your private property- so you took action. You believe that your home is your private place and that no one else should come in unless you invite them, and that your possessions are your property and no one elses. You have imposed your values on another person.
So, this accusation is clearly wrongheaded and inaccurate. The fact is, the government and it's citizens impose their values on others, and life as we know it actually depends on some values being imposed on others. The question isn't is it ok to impose values on others but rather which values should be imposed on others? This distinction is important because it levels the playing field in any discussion. Once the person making this accusation is forced to admit the error in their thinking, it allows the focus to remain on the issue at hand (the value in question). If this accusation goes unchecked, it gives the accuser some unwarranted high ground because it makes the receiver out to be arrogant and intolerant because they're imposing values on others. As I've outlined here, this is clearly absurd because the society we live in relies on the imposition of certain values on everyone, and we all must impose some values on others in order to function.
To dissect this accusation, let's start by examining it further. The claim is basically that one person's values should not be imposed on another person's, because that person has the right to their own values. However, my response is simple: It's ok to impose your values on others because everyone imposes values on others, and it'd be impossible to live life without imposing some of your values on others.
Allow me to give a couple of examples to support my statement. Firstly, consider governments and law. In Australia, various laws exist because they've been passed as bills in parliament, or because they've been established by case law, or what have you. The end result of those various processes is that some things are illegal and some things are legal. The government (through the court system) enforces many propositions and values: murder is wrong and deserves to be heavily penalised, rape is wrong and also deserves serious penalty, marijuana use is not allowable. And so on. The point is: The government is imposing their values on everyone, regardless of whether those individuals agree or not.
Now let's take this to a personal level. Lets imagine you live in a sharehouse, with a few housemates. You wake in the middle of the night, hearing a clanging sound. One of your housemates wakes up too. You go downstairs and discover a robbery is taking place- they've got a bag full of something sounding like jewellery, and are looking through your dvd collection, adding to their bag of goodies. Now imagine you and your housemate physically apprehend the robber and in doing so, hurt him so much that he requires stitches. In the final anaylsis, what have you done? You didn't like the fact that someone was stealing your valuables and intruding on your private property- so you took action. You believe that your home is your private place and that no one else should come in unless you invite them, and that your possessions are your property and no one elses. You have imposed your values on another person.
So, this accusation is clearly wrongheaded and inaccurate. The fact is, the government and it's citizens impose their values on others, and life as we know it actually depends on some values being imposed on others. The question isn't is it ok to impose values on others but rather which values should be imposed on others? This distinction is important because it levels the playing field in any discussion. Once the person making this accusation is forced to admit the error in their thinking, it allows the focus to remain on the issue at hand (the value in question). If this accusation goes unchecked, it gives the accuser some unwarranted high ground because it makes the receiver out to be arrogant and intolerant because they're imposing values on others. As I've outlined here, this is clearly absurd because the society we live in relies on the imposition of certain values on everyone, and we all must impose some values on others in order to function.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)