O’Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

[Tassman]

How about this, you worry about your country, and we will worry about our country and what it takes to keep it the most powerful, freedom supporting nation, on earth.

I see. So, promoting widespread wealth inequality is what it takes to keep your country strong.

God our creator imputes value, you know We hold these truths to be self-evident...

So human “value” is merely the unevidenced belief that we’re special? Good for the ego, I suppose. And it sustains your escapist wishful thinking that you will live forever.

Now answer: how does the process of evolution confer human rights and human worth?

Human rights are not “conferred” by anything; this assumes without any evidence that there is a “conferrer”. There is no good reason to think this. Our “human rights” are the consequence of the evolved sociability of our species and our natural tendency to prefer cooperative social structures in order to render our species successful as social animals.

That is not the point, stop avoiding. Does process of evolution also impute house fly rights and worth?

Evolution infuses all living creatures, insect or mammal, with the necessary qualities to best survive according to their natural limitations and instincts. (see above).

[Leonhard]

Throughout most of Judeo/Christian history abortion has NOT been regarded as a “sin” at all. This is a recent phenomenon.

I have never argued that Jewish culture, throughout the centuries, held that abortion was [not] wrong.

Tassman, you're doing a 180 degree about face. Earlier you made a specific claim, now you're denying it. I'd like to argue a position, but until you state which of these two quotes represent your view, and which one is wrong, we can't proceed.

[Tassman]

Tassman, you're doing a 180 degree about face. Earlier you made a specific claim, now you're denying it. I'd like to argue a position, but until you state which of these two quotes represent your view, and which one is wrong, we can't proceed.

They are both the same statement. Namely, throughout most of Judeo/Christian history abortion has NOT been regarded as a “sin”.

[Leonhard]

Unlike science, metaphysics is an abstraction, an academic argument, which is unable to be substantiated.

Metaphysics can be argued, you're doing so in this thread at least, but regardless of that as long as you acknowledge science as also being an abstraction I won't labor the point.

Oh. And what are we then if not highly intelligent evolved social animals ... - like many other social animals?

It's not that I disagree with you, except for the part I snipped out where I don't think the science is as strong as you do. It's rather that I think our evolutionary history is largely irrelevant, especially since the largest components of the human mind can't be explained in terms of evolution. Most traits we have, cannot be accounted for by natural selection.

So if you limited yourself, only to what statements about human being, we could derive from evolution... you would limit yourself to what broad, highly generalized facts, can be gleaned from a comparative study across various mammals. And that's an extremely limited set of statements. Whereas as if you just began with human being, as we are, what we need, what we're made of, our intents, aspirations, etc... Then you would not have lost anything, because by beginning with what a human being is, and what it means to seek a goal of somekind, you would already have all the things you could glean from studying our history.

Not so. Darwin acknowledged the sociability of our species and the tendency in evolution to naturally select 'cooperation' in early humanity in order to render our species successful.

But you claimed he 'demonstrated' it. It's true that Darwin speculated on it. But he only ever got to argue for kin selection theory, by using such examples as ant hives, where the entire ant hive acts as a single-family unit, and therefore kin selection can in this special circumstance extend to a group. When it comes to humans it's virtually impossible to use these types of arguments he did to argue for broadly social cooperative strategies.

What "puzzle of human behavior"?

Many things, but in general, why we are the way we are.

That these traits evolved via natural selection is not in dispute. Nor do they necessarily represent adaptations as per the hypothesis of “adaptionism”.

On the contrary, the field of Evolutionary Psychology, which is what you're arguing for is very controversial, and a lot of the points you're talking about are in dispute. Even within that field. I am not making a creationist argument against evolution here. This is in fact a highly problematic field. I'll quote you exclusively from atheists to show you

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...gy-of-our-era/

Source: Steven Myers

I've criticized evolutionary psychology more than a few times, and usually my arguments rest on their appallingly bad understanding of the "evolutionary" part of their monicker — proponents all seem to be rank adaptationists with a cartoon understanding of evolution. But what about the "psychology" part? I've mentioned at least one dissection of EP by a psychologist in the past, but here's another one, a paper by the same author, Brad Peters, that explains that evolutionary psychology is poor neurobiology and bad psychology.

The paper points out that EP uses evidence inappropriately, ignores the range of alternative explanations to set up false dichotomies ("if you don't accept evolutionary psychology, you must also deny evolution!"), plays rhetorical games to dodge questions about its assumptions, ...

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Evolutionary Thought in Psychology: A Brief History - Henry Plotkin

But, argued Gould and Lewontin, sociobiology was insufficiently aware of the plurality of causes in complex biological systems, and was largely an exercise in the telling of adaptionist just-so stories in which all phenotypic traits, including complex culturally determined behaviors and practices, are incorrectly designated as adaptions for the good of those unlikely entities, the genes. This is a not insubstantial point and 20 years later was to be repeatedly leveled at evolutionary psychology

© Copyright Original Source

In fact the problem of "just-so" stories in Evolutionary Psychology is rampant.

Source: Noam Chomsky - Chomsky vs Thrivers

You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it.

© Copyright Original Source

No, not ALL aspects of human behavior at all. Just the tendency in natural selection to prefer cooperation in early humanity in order to render our species successful survivors.

Not even the fact that we prefer cooporation, over being loners can be explained. Its explained by relationship to the chimps, in that, we descended from a common ancestor who likely also have cooporative strategies. Of course, but that's trivially true. There is no account of the origin of this, why it should arise as a trait, and there are plenter of a species out there lacking such trats.

Misleading out-of-context quote,

There was nothing out of context of it, it was a rather neat statement of a fact. Behavior doesn't fossilize. That there are other avenues such as comparative studies with other species, I never denied that, but if you're limited to argue what we have in common with chimps, that just underscores my point: Why focus on the history of our psychology, which we know so little about and can never know much about. When instead, as an ethicist, you can just take us as we are right now.

Why the constant focus on evolution? Why does this matter in an ethical picture at all?

I'm only asking you since you write out the same run-on sentences spelling out how you consider some of our traits selected for by natural selection, whenever you're asked about human rights. There's just a disconnect there to me. What does evolution have to do with it at all.

Incorrect. DarwinÂ’s Theory of Evolution is a well-substantiated scientific explanation

No, you're mistaken. Darwin committed many scientific errors in his work, both in terms of the assumptions he started with, such as a highly flawed notion of heridity, which he inhereted from Haeckel, but also on other conclusions he drew from his evidence. There is nothing controversial in this at all. Darwin started a field, he did not perfect it. It's the same with virtually any field where historically we identify one man in the beginning of it.

Conversely, metaphysical arguments are premised by assumptions that can never be substantiated by metaphysics alone. E.g. It took verifiable scientific evidence, NOT academic argument, to overturn Aristotle's theory that the universe was Earth centered?

I think you have Aristotle confused with Ptolomeus, who used the results of astrography at the time to chart the movements of the planets, and drew up arguably the first empirically based model of the solar system.

I suggest you read the Almagest by Ptolomeus. He speculates that the stars are infinitely far away (though the greek can also be interpreted as just extremely far away). Each chapter of the book is full of astronomical measurements using the admittedly primitive tools at the time.

The model is wrong, but it was quite empirical.

[Leonhard]

They are both the same statement. Namely, throughout most of Judeo/Christian history abortion has NOT been regarded as a “sin”.

But that is exactly what it has. Throughout most of Judeo/Christian history, feticide is in fact considered murder by the Jews and Christians were also united against it whenever they wrote on the subject, though they spent more effort on infanticide which was a bigger problem at that time.

I have demonstrated and shown that to you. Others have as well. Yet you keep bringing myjewishlearning, both in this thread and in others, while seemingly ignoring both the content of the article you link to, or the fact that it only document very recent moral developments in the jewish community.

[Leonhard]

One thing that's getting old about "new atheists" is their dismissal of philosophy.

[rogue06]

But that is exactly what it has. Throughout most of Judeo/Christian history, feticide is in fact considered murder by the Jews and Christians were also united against it whenever they wrote on the subject, though they spent more effort on infanticide which was a bigger problem at that time.

I have demonstrated and shown that to you. Others have as well. Yet you keep bringing myjewishlearning, both in this thread and in others, while seemingly ignoring both the content of the article you link to, or the fact that it only document very recent moral developments in the jewish community.

This all has been pointed out to him multiple times by several different folks but he continues to pretend otherwise either in an attempt to fool others or possibly himself.

[Leonhard]

This all has been pointed out to him multiple times by several different folks but he continues to pretend otherwise either in an attempt to fool others or possibly himself.

Its honestly a little bit insulting.

[rogue06]

Its honestly a little bit insulting.

And yet he returns time and again with the exact same PRATTs only to see them beaten into a fine pink mist once more.

[seer]

I see. So, promoting widespread wealth inequality is what it takes to keep your country strong.

No Homer, free markets create wealth. The wealth necessary for innovation, growth, military prowess, and the large safety net that we enjoy. But like I said you worry about your own country, we don't live by your arbitrary metrics.

So human “value” is merely the unevidenced belief that we’re special? Good for the ego, I suppose. And it sustains your escapist wishful thinking that you will live forever.

No God, no universal or objective worth for man, or universal rights and duties.

Human rights are not “conferred” by anything; this assumes without any evidence that there is a “conferrer”. There is no good reason to think this. Our “human rights” are the consequence of the evolved sociability of our species and our natural tendency to prefer cooperative social structures in order to render our species successful as social animals.

That is nonsense, sociability does not logically lead to the category of human rights. It didn't for most of our history, and still doesn't in many countries of the world, like China.

Evolution infuses all living creatures, insect or mammal, with the necessary qualities to best survive according to their natural limitations and instincts. (see above).

And that has nothing to do with human rights. That is legal fiction on your part.

[Cow Poke]

But that is exactly what it has. Throughout most of Judeo/Christian history, feticide is in fact considered murder by the Jews and Christians were also united against it whenever they wrote on the subject, though they spent more effort on infanticide which was a bigger problem at that time.

I have demonstrated and shown that to you. Others have as well. Yet you keep bringing myjewishlearning, both in this thread and in others, while seemingly ignoring both the content of the article you link to, or the fact that it only document very recent moral developments in the jewish community.

Tassman frequently stakes a claim, then bends or distorts "facts" to back him up.

[RumTumTugger]

Tassman frequently stakes a claim, then bends or distorts "facts" to back him up.

Not only Tass it is Starlight, JimL et al.

[Tassman]

Metaphysics can be argued, you're doing so in this thread at least, but regardless of that as long as you acknowledge science as also being an abstraction I won't labor the point.

Scientific premises can be tested and verified. Metaphysics does not have the ability to test its premises and verify them. Hence the conclusion of a metaphysical argument cannot be shown to be true no matter how valid the argument.

It's not that I disagree with you, except for the part I snipped out where I don't think the science is as strong as you do. It's rather that I think our evolutionary history is largely irrelevant, especially since the largest components of the human mind can't be explained in terms of evolution. Most traits we have, cannot be accounted for by natural selection.

This is an ‘argument from ignorance’ fallacy.

But you claimed he 'demonstrated' it. It's true that Darwin speculated on it.

More than merely “speculated on it”. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection made us rethink our place in the world. The idea that humans shared a common ancestor with apes was an insight to how ALL social species function in terms of survival. As has been reinforced by subsequent research.

Many things, but in general, why we are the way we are.

It is the role of science, not metaphysics, to ascertain how and why we are the way we are.

On the contrary, the field of Evolutionary Psychology, which is what you're arguing for is very controversial, and a lot of the points you're talking about are in dispute. Even within that field. I am not making a creationist argument against evolution here. This is in fact a highly problematic field.

Indeed. But this is a straw-man. I’m NOT arguing the field of Evolutionary Psychology. I’m arguing the evolved tendency in natural selection for the cooperation of hominids in order to render them successful survivors. How we exercise this tendency has varied to a degree from culture to culture over time.

There was nothing out of context of it, it was a rather neat statement of a fact. Behavior doesn't fossilize. That there are other avenues such as comparative studies with other species, I never denied that, but if you're limited to argue what we have in common with chimps, that just underscores my point: Why focus on the history of our psychology, which we know so little about and can never know much about. When instead, as an ethicist, you can just take us as we are right now.

To understand us “as we are right now”, we need to know how we arrived here – as your reference to the “great anthropologist Louis Leakey”, himself made clear. This is why he focused on the study of our closest relatives the Chimpanzees and made unprecedented discoveries of hominids millions of years old linked to human evolution, including Homo habilis and Homo erectus and deduced that their behavior was similar to that of Homo sapiens in terms of cooperative communal behavior.

Why the constant focus on evolution? Why does this matter in an ethical picture at all?

So, what DOES matter in an ethical picture, Leonhard?

Ethics is merely a system of rules of behavior to regulate our behavior. As a social species Stone Age man also had them, Neanderthal man had them as did Homo erectus and the other archaic human species.

No, you're mistaken. Darwin committed many scientific errors in his work,

Nevertheless, “Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology”.

https://www.livescience.com/474-cont...ion-works.html

The model is wrong, but it was quite empirical.

Yes it was wrong because Aristotle had no means of establishing a verifiable premise. Hence he could not arrive at a verifiable true conclusion. Metaphysics is grounded in logic but it has no mechanism to establish a verifiable premise from which to make a deductive argument. Science does. Metaphysical premises must rely on unsubstantiated assumptions or so-called “self-evident truths” to form its premises.

[Tassman]

But that is exactly what it has. Throughout most of Judeo/Christian history, feticide is in fact considered murder by the Jews and Christians were also united against it whenever they wrote on the subject, though they spent more effort on infanticide which was a bigger problem at that time.

You are erroneously conflating “infanticide”, which was ALWAYS considered “murder” with “feticide” (abortion) for which there has never been a consensus, especially among early Christians. There is no explicit prohibition of abortion in either the "Old Testament" or "New Testament" books of the Christian Bible.

One thing that's getting old about "new atheists" is their dismissal of philosophy.

Not at all. There is a place in science for philosophy. Metaphysics, logic and philosophy are the glue that holds the scientific structure together, ensures its self-consistency, and helps us prevent errors of false inference. But they cannot arrive at verifiable facts in and of themselves. They can only expose and reformulate the facts contained in our tested scientific models, theories and laws.

[Leonhard]

You are erroneously conflating “infanticide”, which was ALWAYS considered “murder” with “feticide” (abortion) for which there has never been a consensus, especially among early Christians.

The only thing we know about early Christians come from the Church Fathers. And they are almost unanimous, even if not everyone wrote on it.

Not at all. There is a place in science for philosophy.

I'd really suggest you crack open some books on philosophy. Especially philosophy of science.

Science is not the only source of knowledge we have, science is limited to only those properties of the world that can be given mathematical and naturalistic explanations. The advantage is that we can gather knowledge with high confidence, and trust, for those facts. The disadvantage, which is inevitable, is that it excludes almost all everyday experiences, your own personal senses, and all common sense you have. You know more than what science can tell you.

For instance, you know that science works, but that statement is not a scientific statement. You can't perform a scientific experiment, to show that the enterprise of science is actually a success.

That's a philosophical enquiry.