tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post2948268791820721825..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 03Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-22553372839850378982010-07-28T01:14:28.392-06:002010-07-28T01:14:28.392-06:00'This includes everything from stoning a woman...'This includes everything from stoning a woman to death to denying the benefits of marriage to a homosexual couple to denying an abortion to a young girl raped by her father to beheading a man because he is an atheist.'<br /><br />Above are 4 actions. What is your view of the morality of these actions? Do you think moral reasoning can get us to answers about the morality of these actions? <br /><br />I will check back on here for your reply, so we can discuss this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-25549971028779004202010-07-19T06:09:50.348-06:002010-07-19T06:09:50.348-06:00I also want to point out how, in the footnote, the...I also want to point out how, in the footnote, the authors have cherry-picked their data, selecting only that portion of history that seems to confirm their conclusion.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-60860818519519196132010-07-19T05:38:59.375-06:002010-07-19T05:38:59.375-06:00faithlessgod
As for the research mentioned in the...<b>faithlessgod</b><br /><br />As for the research mentioned in the footnote, the type of conclusions that historical research can bring to discussion is the same type of research that declars, "History says that black men are more likely to break the law than white men."<br /><br />A history of correlation is not a history of causation. In order to demonstrate causation, you need a different type of theory - a theory that explains HOW one item is related to another such that variation in one corresponds to variation in the other.<br /><br />Once one has such a theory, one can then look to history to determine if the theory can do an adequate job of explaining history.<br /><br />However, the justification comes from appeal to the theory, never by appeal to history itself. History can only give us correlation.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-72824710784993105912010-07-19T05:35:15.661-06:002010-07-19T05:35:15.661-06:00faithlessgod
...when...you create your Declaratio...<b>faithlessgod</b><br /><br /><i>...when...you create your Declaration,...it would be easier to get such a declaration accepted by others if one could lift already agreed clauses from other declarations.</i><br /><br />Yes, it could. I understand the political usefulness of these types of tactics.<br /><br />However, for the purposes of my blog, I would rather focus on what is true rather than what is politically expedient. Not that political expedience is bad - political inexpedience can sometimes be extremely costly. But, this little blog in its corner of the universe is not the place for it.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76475028491585073572010-07-19T05:30:33.526-06:002010-07-19T05:30:33.526-06:00anton kozlik
The "garbage" I was referr...<b>anton kozlik</b><br /><br />The "garbage" I was referring to is not the claim that secular societies are the best. It is the claim that "history" supports this view.<br /><br />I agree that secular societies are bette. However, it is not because history supports the view.<br /><br />It is because faith-based policies effectively justify state violence grounded on myth and superstition.<br /><br />It is because faith-based policies allow for no method to test their conclusions against reality.<br /><br />It is because when two people come at each other with firm convictions based on faith, there is no way to appeal to reason and evidence to determine who is right. The only option that remains is to appeal to the gun.<br /><br />I think it is absurd, at this point, to argue that the conclusion is correct based on history, unless and until the appeal to history is itself based on a decent theory that explains and predicts those historic events.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-20330674727895962322010-07-18T07:07:32.513-06:002010-07-18T07:07:32.513-06:00As for the second part of this proposition "H...As for the second part of this proposition "History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular. [4]" The end note states:<br /><br />"Research in social science show that strongly religious modern nations have been unsuccessful <br />in terms of basic social and economic indicators such as levels of crime and incarceration, life <br />expectancy, the adverse consequences of sexuality and in securing prosperity. The most secular advanced democracies are consistently the most successful."<br /><br />Certainly their statement of this in the proposition is very ineptly stated and you correctly criticised but certainly there is much well grounded support for this assertion - although they do not provide the actual and numerous references in this footnote.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44044336022570101852010-07-18T07:02:33.810-06:002010-07-18T07:02:33.810-06:00The end note here refers to the Brussels Declarati...The end note here refers to the <a href="https://www.iheu.org/v4e/html/the_declaration.html" rel="nofollow">Brussels Declaration 2007</a> (BD)created by the <a href="https://www.iheu.org/" rel="nofollow">International Humanist and Ethical Union</a><br /><br />As to which clauses are being referred there appear to be a few that are relevant. Now as another declaration this too could be examined the same way as you are examining the Copenhagen Declaration (CD). I fear a regress of de-constructing declaration after declaration could ensue and not something to recommend!<br /><br />However it might be that this and other declarations phrase points better than the propositions in the one you are examining. For example compare CD_P1 to BD_4:<br /><br />"We affirm the right of everyone to adopt and follow a religion or belief of their choosing. But the beliefs of any group may not be used to limit the rights of others." <br /><br />This prima facie seems less problematic that CD_P1 that you criticised in a previous post. (You might have criticisms of this too but this is not the point I want to make here)<br /><br />The point I want to make here is that, when, as you were already planning and I additionally suggested, you create your Declaration (lets call it AD?), it would be easier to get such a declaration accepted by others if one could lift already agreed clauses from other declarations. I am not saying that my proposed substitution of BD_4 for CD_1 is correct, it is just an illustrative candidate.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48305650987352251882010-07-15T04:00:30.265-06:002010-07-15T04:00:30.265-06:00Nicely put Professor. I lived the proposition you ...Nicely put Professor. I lived the proposition you declare in the begining of this part. I live in the middle east and feel what a nonsense religion is. thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.Samhttp://soheilzdiary.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-7286048868300630472010-07-11T08:25:05.107-06:002010-07-11T08:25:05.107-06:00Where in heck did this piece of garbage come from?...<i>Where in heck did this piece of garbage come from?</i><br /><br />There are several "secular" societies in our world. The problem, of course, is that it is difficult for US American's to recognize them as successful because they don't use the US formula or worship at the "USAltar of Greatness". For example, the very country where this was held has the highest concentration of atheists per capita in the world. I would imagine that we have to agree on "what constitutes success" before we can use the "garbage label".<br />.anton kozlikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15615649262704016807noreply@blogger.com