|
Please read Dr.
Tremblay's coming book: The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles Click here
to pre-order on Amazon COMMENTS
The Moral Dimension of Things
New Science and Religion Posted, Monday, March 8, 2010 12:20 pm ...Your article on ethics and science is well-taken.
I take your expression "religious absolutism" to mean something
like what Thomas Erskine of Linlathen, one of the Marrow Men of the Scottish
Reformation, meant when he said: "Those who make religion their god
will not have God for their religion."
Science, of course, assumes the existence of absolutes. It is impossible to
think logically otherwise, for to actually deny absolutes one must do so
absolutely. Your attack on "religion", though quite
justified in general, was so general - a shotgun, not a rifle - that it might
generate more heat than light when what it appears to me you wanted to do was
increase light. Perhaps you should do an update on science-religion issues. A
good place to start would be www.asa3.org. You seem to be operating from
the historically discredited paradigm of science being at war with religion. Certainly one can find clear disagreements between
various theological positions and authentic science (not philosophy in the
name of science). Your three examples illustrate this. Galileo, who himself
was a believer in the biblical worldview, was at odds with the schoolmen -
the scholastics - who were essentially neoplatonists. They pulled the Pope into
the conflict, though the source of it was not the Roman Church but the
university professors. Galileo said “I do not feel obliged to believe
that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has
intended us to forgo their use.” As for the Darwinian controversy, even more
theological speculation raised to an absolute has produced a range of
positions, some of which ignore both what the creation and the Bible actually
say. An example is young-earth creationism, which discounts well-established
scientific development about the universe of the past. What many who are also
anti-Bible do not realize is that YEC also reads into early Genesis what is
not there. Genesis simply does not tell us how God created the heavens and
the earth because it is not intended to be a scientific treatise; the scope
of its concern is larger than what science can address. It even uses language
that indicates process was involved ("Let the earth bring forth
..."). What most YECists have in common with the Medieval schoolmen
is the same neoplatonist view of reality, that God simply pulls rabbits out
of a hat to invoke his will in the Universe. Science shows clearly that
God operates by what for us are reliable laws which we can codify as
scientific principles and rely upon. To the ancient Yahwist Israelites of the
Bible, the most prominent characteristic of their God was reliability or
faithfulness in behavior - a covenant-keeping God - as opposed to the pagan
gods, who were unpredictable, fickle and capricious. No wonder science
historically was developed by those, like Galileo, with a biblical worldview
as an outlook for their investigation of the natural world. The mind-brain or mind-body problem is a favorite of
mine. I refer you to www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF9-99Feucht.html
The Bible comes down on both sides of the
determinism-free-will debate, sometimes in the same sentence. Clearly,
something interesting is going on here. British physicist and brain
researcher Donald MacKay, who debated B.F. Skinner on Buckley's Firing
Line, had, I think, a breakthrough in recognizing that
the logic being used to discuss the issue was inadequate. My summary (and
beyond) is in the above-cited article. Dennis Answer by R. T.: Yes. Maybe I should have written
“fundamentalist” instead of “absolutist“. Of course, in a short piece like the
one I wrote it's impossible to summarize everything that can be found in my
coming book. The
Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles New The Law is an Ass
Posted, Monday, March 8, 2010 11:03 am Right on; bravo! My only comment is
that "disregard for the rule of law" here in the USA would be an
improvement, as that principle was undermined, then directly and openly
attacked, and (since 9/11) has begun to be supplanted by a parallel system of
corporstist 'police state' autocracy. Indeed, my point is that a disregard for 'rule of
law' here would be an improvement, as 'rule of law by due process' is being
rooted out, destroyed, and crowded out by the parallel system of socalled
emergency powers and edicts which are not even published. Absurd and vile as it may be, under the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, emergency executive orders are secret. We have a
parallel 'legal' system where the laws are secret! Yet, ignorance of the law
is not a defense. Kafka could not be more kafkaesque than this. And the general public here has been so lobotomized,
and willingly so, that no one but 'conspiracy theorist nutjobs' are
concerned. Then there's the economic policy shell game of
proposing 'prime the pump' economic stimuli while ignoring the structural
problems that are largely responsible for our economic malaise. However this point is not even discussed, let alone
addressed, as the structural problems were created deliberately or as
byproducts of related policy decisions. E.g., falling employment and
real wages, and a continual shift in the distribution of income between K and
L to the disadvantage of L is not a problem to everyone -- only to most
Americans. Yet, most are too propagandized or cowed to object to
the continual losses of wealth and liberty that the Korporist Reich imposes
on them. John New Religion and
Politics
Posted, Monday, March 8, 2010 9:23 am I would like to share some reflections with you in
reference to your most recent article I received last week in which you mentioned
the Catholic Church in a quote by someone from South America who said the
Church provides bullets. I know I am paraphrasing the reference you quoted.
Was that a reference to "Liberation Theology?" I have been an observer in the U.S. during the last
decade of what I characterize as an abomination particularly under Bush 2 of
mixing religion and politics and war. I believe it was a false religion
used to propagate a world domination philosophy with Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush
and many others behind 9-11, false accusations against Obama Bin Laden, the
Iraq war genocide, and continuing involvement in the Middle East by the
Trinity of Power of the U.S., England and Israel. I am horrified by how Bush was able to manipulate
Christians, particularly the evangelical, protestant types to push for a holy
war against islam. What amazed me is how Bush deceived people to believe he
was a Christian so that he was more the Pope than the pope himself. Bush was
almost deified by those "Christians" who wrote many books praising
the dedication of "Saint Bush" to Jesus Christ! And millions of
people believe we were in a holy war with Iraq. All the more
incongruous and amazing was how authentic Christianity in Iraq was nearly
destroyed after surviving nearly 2,000 years. Was there remorse from them for
the millions of Iraquis who were destroyed and maybe even the living were
envying the dead? I want to recall that in 2003 before Bush
lauched the holocaust against Iraq, it was Pope John Paul 2 who pleaded with
Bush to not invade. There were also millions of other protestors around the
world, including myself in San Francisco, at rallies protesting the proposed
invasion. It was so obviously an unjust war. Maybe there is no such thing as
even justice any more? If you look at the financial manipulators like
Greenspan, Bernanke, Gaither, Goldman, Sachs, Paulson, etc. you know they are
making the rules as they go. Are they Catholics? I see the situation, in part, during these days that
there is good religion and bad religion but it is not easy to differentiate
which is which. I believe in good and evil. I respect your view
as an "agnostic" during these confusing times when good is bad and
bad is good. All of the rules are changing. Change becomes the rule. But
look at the French Revolution and Communism and the Spanish Civil War and the
Mexican persecutions against Catholics. To use "religion" to
justify war is an abomination. To me it exposed how Satan or the devil
or evil had invaded the minds and hearts of millions to confuse them to
believe that war is peace to commit genocide in Iraq. Generals in the
Pentagon used to have bible studies and prayer meetings. Evangelical
megachurches were excited to drop prayer leaflets along with the bombs into
Iraq. But that is not the "voice of God" as I
believe it. I can see why it is easy to be disillusioned with
"religion" when such behavior occurs. They certainly gave a bad
name a scandal to religion. All of that time there was relentless media
attention about the priest child abuse scandals just in the Catholic Church
being publicized. The United States history is one of control by the
Protestant elites and degradation of the Catholic Church even though the
Catholic Church has thrived and flourished in the U.S. Bush was the Protestant
Elite personified ruling the world. That is not real religion put power and
wealth, moreso the Kingdom of Satan, as I see it. I believe there is an "authentic religion"
which is spoken about in the holy books and sacred scriptures. The
problem is with the followers, the disciples. Remember the story of the
encounter in the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus and his disciples with the
soldiers? Jesus had to rebuke Peter for striking a soldier with a sword! See
how quickly we forget what we should be doing. I believe God did come
as Jesus Christ. The problem is with us, the followers, the
belilevers. We always fall short. I believe there is an authentic
Church for those called to it. I appreciate your insights you continue sharing in
which you offer me much positive understanding about the world in which we
are living. Joe
Answer by R. T.: No.
I do not think that the Evo Morales' quote refers to Liberation Theology. On
the contrary. The
high clergy in Latin America is allied, just as in the United States and in
most countries, with the establishment. Remember how the catholic high clergy
contributed in having John Kerry defeated in 2004 by de facto excommunicating
him!!! The
lower clergy in LA is closer to the people and this may have a double-edged
sword influence. In any case, the high clergy and the hierarchy trumps anytime the lower clergy. Of
course, I would appreciate very much if you were to post your nice analysis
of things on Amazon once my book is out in a few weeks. My approach is also
nuanced. New Scientific
Knowledge
Posted, Sunday, March 7, 2010 11:59 pm In your article, you treat scientific knowledge as
the remaining touchstone of truth in an age of mendacity. I would suggest
that you think again. In the present age science has gained great moral
authority because of its past success. This has made it the current substitute for
religious dogmatism as a mechanism for the assertion of social control.
Unfortunately, this means that scientific knowledge must become a dogma
itself so that it may be used to justify and buttress political policies. The sciences are replete with dogmatic assertions,
fraudulent claims, suppression of evidence, exclusion of dissenting voices
and media lies as to the meaning of it all. The effort to replace Science with
Scientism, a pseudo religious doctrine about the nature of material reality
is well advanced and makes nonsense of any serious inquiry into the nature of
physical reality. This Scientism can then be used to justify all manner of
bogus political policies to a credulous public. It is a danger at least as
great as the Catholic Church ever was. The sciences are a public danger in
the hands of their current custodians. A quick trip around the internet will
show you dissenting voices to mainstream orthodoxy across any number of
separate fields. I will provide a URL to one article which pretty much speaks
for the basic message of the rest and in a context appropriate to your
article and this email. I suggest that you read it and then follow up on its
basic claims. The sciences are as lost in the same moral decay as all the
rest. I would say even more so. The greatest need for moral autonomy is in
the sciences. A domain in which you appear to think resides the last bastion
of integrity. Please think again. Answer
by R. T.: Very
nicely put. I
do not consider science as a source of morals. Science is amoral and can be
used in many ways, some very immoral. Knowledge, however, cannot be discarded
and must help us find better ways to be more moral. That's all. New A Divine World
Posted, Sunday, March 7, 2010 11:54 am "Therefore, nobody can claim anymore that
the Earth is the center of the Universe; nobody can claim that humans are
unique in the scale of things; and nobody can claim that the human body and
the human mind are two unrelated entities. This knowledge has tremendous
consequences for our moral stance. "My best hope is that we will avoid falling
back into an age of
obscurantism and of decadence, and that we will be
able to build a truly humanist civilization for the future." Rodrigue Tremblay Two questions: If humans are no longer "unique in the scale of
things", why call your hope "humanist"? Why not call it
simply the living, moral universe, wherein all living
things are seen as unique and sacred, not just the human? That would be a truly moral civilization, based upon
love, awe and respect, rather than an immoral one based upon control,
separation and fear. The biggest mistake organized religion made was to
take the divine out of this world and place it in a separate,
abstract realm called heaven. The biggest mistake organized science made was to refuse
to recognize the divine within the material world it studies. Re-examine all that you have been told, dismiss that
which insults your soul. Kurt Answer
by R. T.: You are undoubtedly aware of British
geophysicist Lovelock's Gaia concept and theory about the
world as a self-regulating system that supports life, especially human life.
In my new book, I have a chapter (chap. 7) that deals with the environment
and how its deterioration is threatening human survival. I recommend two of Lovelock's books: Gaia: A New
Look at Life on Earth by James
Lovelock (Nov. 23, 2000); and, The Revenge
of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis & The Fate of Humanity by James
Lovelock (June 5, 2007). However, I do not subscribe to the sort of pantheism
that turns everything in nature into a god. The Universe in amoral. Advanced
forms of life, the mammals for example, must have moral codes, however
primitive, to survive. Of course, humans are the most advanced species of
mammals and their sheer number is testimony that they have succeeded in the
survival game. The past is no guarantee of the future and there is
no certainty that humans will not be the dinosaurs of the future. Mind you,
the dinosaurs were the dominant form of life on earth for some 180 million
years. Consider that the first humans appeared only two million years ago.
This places things into perspective. New Moses' Ten
Commandments vs The Ten Humanist Commandments
Posted, Saturday, March 6, 2010 11:44 am Sounds kind of like you're recreating the "ten
commandments". I'm curious if you disagree with any of the Ten
Commandments, if so, which ones and why? If not, then are you rewriting them
for all the people who don't like Christianity so they can have a
non-Christian set to follow and thus not feel as though they've reverted to
that archaic type of thought? Steve Answer
by R. T.: Regarding
the Ten Christian/Jewish Commandments, it would seem that they are incomplete
as it pertains to our times. The first four of Moses' commandments are not
about human morality at all, but are the foundations for a monotheist cult or
religion [no other gods but me; no idol; no use of the name
of your God; observe the Sabbath.] Regarding human morality, there are three commandments that are found in all moral codes:[do not kill; do not steal; do not lie.] So, we are left with only three commandments that are somewhat original: [One about sex (adultery), one about envy and one about respect for your parents.] As
you can see, there is not much there. Nothing about the equality and dignity
of all human beings. Nothing about tolerance. Nothing about human empathy.
Nothing really about sharing. Nothing about domination. Nothing about
superstition. Nothing about respect for the environment. Nothing about wars.
Nothing about democracy. Nothing about the proper education of children. Well, my coming book “The
Code for GLOBAL ETHICS, Ten Humanist Principles”, [ISBN:
978-1616141721], published this year by Prometheus Books, is a humble attempt
to modernize our moral guidelines. New The Planet’s
Energy Imbalance
Posted, Saturday,
March 6, 2010 10:23 am Rodrigue yep.
—Let’s just read one thing that means the end of the human race
as we know it as a start. Widely overlooked,
Hansen says, is that as the debate raged, two significant pieces of research
were published that made the depth of the problem clearer than ever. -The first dealt
with the planet’s energy imbalance. As a result of the greenhouse
effect, more energy comes in from the sun than radiation leaves Earth. In his
book, Hansen said the best evidence suggested the imbalance was half a watt
per square metre – smaller than the three-quarters of a watt climate
models had predicted. By the time the book was published in December, this
was out of date. ”Papers
have now been published based on measurements from Argo floats – a
couple of thousand floats around the world’s oceans supplied by different
governments,” Hansen says. ”Now,
these floats have a yo-yo that goes down to a two-kilometre depth … For
the first time, they really have got good measurements of the oceans’
temperature and how it’s changed since 2002. And it turns out the
imbalance is about three-quarters of a watt. ”That is
really important because that tells us where the planet is headed: the planet
is going to continue to warm up until it gets back to energy balance.” (Hansen) Am still not sure most get it and what
this means. War, millions then billions on the move to nowhere, more war,
freedom maybe for only a few and on and on. The climate bill here in the
States is a joke a bad joke. We must change the way we produce energy and
now. It can be done and will take a lot of us on the same page. It can be
done and very sure the powers that be will tell us it can’t next on
there list of things to tell us. Right now here in the States they are
fighting over health care the money with nonsense and each day they do that
we get closer to a tipping point one human’s have never seen. Yes
it’s to late for many changes and man it’s going to get tuff so
what let’s try. Don
New Morality as Reality Posted,
Saturday, March 6, 2010 10:05 am Some people or a
person had stated that morality is not reality. It had been invented, as i
understand it, in order to deceive. For, to me, morality is reality. Morality
consist of feelings which are as real as a rock. Nature is infinitely valued;
we are part of that nature; thus also infinitely valued. Nature had endowned
us, I think, with ability to greaten or lessen our iniquities that we perp
against nature, self, and other people. Actually, it is a
fact that nature had endowned us to build a better life for all citizens.
Life in finland, norway, denmark, et al appears much better than the life in
US; US citizens being by far more enserfed than most european citizens. Millennial
miseducation by clergy and ancient and modern ‘nobility’ had been
the main cause for most people’s abandoment of their basic human
rights. Division of people into lesser-valued and more-valued had been the
last nail in the coffin of an egalitarian society we must have had at one
time. But once shamans and later priests come along, the idyllic society we
had, had been utterly destroyed in all socalled civilized societies.
Now
the only thing that can prevent extirpation of biota and humans is getting
back our inheritance. TNX New "Obscurantism"
Posted,
Friday, March 5, 2010 11:03 pm Good essay. You likely know the proper definition of
"obscurantism". I didn't. Just in case there are others on this list not
really familiar with it's meaning I attached the URL for the full definition
of this term. The
history /philosophy of this word is interesting and certainly applies to our
corporate media, our Governments/corporations and every Canadian political
Leader that I am aware of. Sadly, it seems there are no longer any
exceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism Obscurantism (French, obscurantisme, from the Latin
obscurans, “darkening”) is the practice of deliberately
preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known.
There are two, common, historical and intellectual, denotations: (i) Restricting Knowledge — opposition to the
spread of knowledge,
a policy of withholding knowledge from the public; and (ii) Deliberate Obscurity — an abstruse
style (as in literature
and art) characterized by
deliberate vagueness. S New Excellent and
Timely
Posted,
Friday, March 5, 2010 09:43 am Dr. Tremblay's article is excellent and timely. Janet New Fool's Gold!
Posted, Friday, March 5, 2010, 2:11 pm If only it were so--if only it was a matter of
intelligent people sitting down and pledging to find a better way. But it is
fool's gold that you are proposing because while the process might describe
the "what"--it does not describe the "who". The "who" concerns a small highly
organized "tribe" who claim to have God on the board. Their plans
are long term in nature [Long Term Penetration]--they obviously control the
planet [central banks/communism/media/psychology/education, etc.] and if you
are not talking about this clan you are wasting your time and mine. In the human world [call it the matrix, if you will]
it's all about "who"--the rest is just hyperbole. You yourself may
be part of the tribe [therefore the most indoctrinated us of all]-- but even
those who might be members--will have to separate to save humanity from the
insanity of the Ashkenazi savant idiots [Freud,Einstein, Greenspan,
Bernays,Oppenheimer,etc]. How about: "The Moral Degeneration of the
Talmud" for your next book. Gary New Science is Just as
Corrupt as Religion
Posted, Friday, March 5, 2010 9:08 am Fantastic article.
—I really agree with you on almost every point in your article The
Moral Dimension Of Things. Morality and ethics are so rarely discussed.
And the corruption and materialism is especially rampant in entertainment and
popular culture. But you seem to be making a case for some clear
division between Humanism and religion and science. There really are no
clear divisions between them, as there are no clear divisions between animals
and humans and animals and plants. That said, it is also impossible to really know that
humans aren't in some way special , or unique, as you say. I don't see why
that even needs to be a part of your argument. Science has become just as corrupt as religion, and
ethics of many scientific researchers appears to be nil. Our greatest threats
come indeed from science- chemical pollution, advanced nuclear weapons,
genetic manipulation of plants and animals. In fact it is the total
disregard of religion, and the heightened importance given to science that
has created this nightmarish culture, to some extent. I would like to see a book called The Mistakes Of
Science. How science is the history of being wrong. Will they ever get
it right? Both science and religion and politics share idealistic
motives and foundations. All have shown themselves equally corruptible. And
there are some aspects of life that science has no ability for, like a fish
out of water. Ethics may be one of them. Aesthetics another. And love a
third. As religion won't help much with fixing my computer, for one. Bob Answer by R. T.: Of
course, science and technology are amoral. Their use can either be directed
toward construction or destruction. What counts is the moral probity of those
who develop them and of those who make use of them. New
knowledge may help us understand our Universe, but this does not make us
better moral persons. For this, we need ethical principles. But you are
right. Morals and ethical values are rarely discussed, except in narrow
issues. For example, former U. S Vice President Dick Cheney
has boasted that a U.S. president can destroy the world on his own volition:
“The [U.S.] president has 24/7 access to nuclear
codes in the event of a nuclear attack against the United States ... He could
launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen... He doesn't
have to check with anybody, he doesn't have to call Congress, he doesn't have
to check with the courts, he has that authority." (Dick
Cheney, George W. Bush's Vice President, Sunday, December 21, 2008). This is
quite something. Nobody asked him if this was moral! New We are all one species Posted,
Friday, March 5, 2010 4:02 am There are nine compartments in the
brain: "Cultivation of the Nine Houses" and about 35,000 years ago
this practice was given to the human being species, by the ancient
"Daoists" In each compartment there is a "gift" -
intuition, psychic, total recall, kinetic, and on it goes with how the brain
has synapses we never use and, the deal is -- on earth we are all one
species, just different forms of the same energy changing spontaneously
forever and ever in understanding itself. Thanks for your incredible writing. Roberta New The Moral Posted,
Friday, March 5, 2010 8:07 am Excellent article
right to the point-the progress of humanity & technology is way out of
balance (inversly proportional). Looking forward to reading your coming book.
The old book Moral compass does not apply any more-you are absolutely right
that humanity is manipulated by the all wrong imputs by the controllers!!!
Then add the Chemtrails, HAARP, psychological warfare, mind control, diluting
nations with forced emigration etc. Can this be reversed???? Thank you for
the courage to write what most would not !!!! Eva New Radical Pessimism
Posted, Thursday, March 4, 2010 19:59 pm I think the very ideal of optimism got hijacked in
North America a long time ago, that is, 18th Century Enlightenment values
have been subordinated to the 19th Century New Thought movement. I've actually developed a fairly elaborate theory of
radical pessimism, which would make me a modern heretic if anyone ever
bothered to confirm "positive thinking" as the empire's established
faith. I actually disagree profoundly with Professor Tremblay's message in
this article, but certainly prefer it to the gooey stuff we're being fed
these days by authoritative sources. John New A Thought
Posted, Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:01 pm A thought. One will do. If you plan to do something that might effect
someone else, ask yourself how you would feel if you were that person/those
people. If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to someone else. Simple. Dave Answer
by R. T.: You
just hit it on the nail. What
you spell out is precisely the concept of human empathy that I explain in
chapter 3 of my new coming book. I call it the Super Golden Rule of
humanist morality that can be framed this way: "Not only do to
others as you would have them do to you, but also, do to others what you
would wish to be done to you, if you were in their place." The corollary
follows: “Don't do to others what you would not like to be done to
you, if you were in their place.” You
can contrast this rule with the one used by deeply religious George W. Bush: "Do
unto others before they do unto you." (!) |