Power over other humans. Are they the ones with a more solid religious background? However, point taken. I tend to think that both Nazism and Communism had roots in Christianity, just as Christianity had roots in Judaism as well as Greco-Roman culture, and who know what roots Judaism or the Greco-Romans had.
I am sure scholars more informed than I could say. Still, my point is that religion and politics are merely vehicles for structures that exist on the emotional side of the human character that will always find a way to express itself. In our age, it comes to the fore in the form of environmental madness and the carpet bombing of the countryside with spinning crucifixes;. There is no IPCC dogma of climate change they have a position based on evidence which many people do challenge and to which their response is to argue based on evidence.
This is more or less the antithesis of dogma. Most scientists like me are not climate scientists and have not studied the evidence ourselves so when asked if they believe in climate change they are effectively responding based on a belief in the instituitions and process of science which have led to a broad consensus in the field and comparing that to the arguments against which are of generally very poor quality. Realistically that is all we have time to do unless we have a very strong interest or concern in some specific area.
It seems to me that the evidence that climate change has resulted from human activity is very strong but there is a lot of room for scepticism about the predictions of climate models and for what the appropriate policy response is. No where in this do I see dogma what I see is the unsurprising fact that most scientists have faith in the scientific process and instituitions. First let me say, that your view on climate change and mine are not that far off. The physics is rock solid, the temperature records and reconstructions are mildly dubious though helpful but the models are ridiculous.
I mean anything that relies on economic projections for fifty years from now…..
As for the IPCC itself. It is not a dispassionate scientific organization. It is a political entity with a political mission. It does not select the best and brightest, it recruits its member from political appointments. It functions on a priori assumptions and that is why its projections burn too hot and its Summary for Policymakers does not reflect its science.
It suffers from the same infliction as much of the environmental movement because it is a product of that movement and the infliction is religion. It is a belief system that justifies itself with science instead of a truth seeking system that uses science to see the way. GreggS Yep I have done my best to inform myself on this serious human subject.
All scientists, not just that moronic 98somthing. I literally have no idea, as who to believe, so now it is neither. Shut down our current world? Not a option… Change it?
Exactly how, and show the ramifications… Await the genius concenscious…. After all, when has this method ever gone wrong before! AJ, give the climate change literature a read. The reason is the obvious selection bias due to the survey respondents being self-selecting from the outset. Particularly when they call in the middle of dinner. That leaves a self-selected cohort of people who basically want to trumpet their affiliation, or lack thereof, to said entity to put their influence behind the social movement in question.
Therefore a religious survey is going to be heavy on committed evangelicals at one end of the spectrum, and avowed atheists on the other. Nazi racialism is alien to the Christian tradition and was informed by its contemporary scientific currents biology, archaeology, physical anthropology , although Christian Anti-Semitism directed against Judaism as a religion was a long-standing, and given that Orthodox Jews define themselves biologically descent from the mother , there was certainly a critique of Jewish exclusivity and ethnocentrism.
Christians attacked Judaism for its exclusiveness Orthodox Jews define themselves biologically based on ancestry and contrasted it to Christian universalism.
But it was a war for who got to be the chosen people, rather than universalism versus exclusive groups. There is little evidence that the Holocaust was public knowledge, as there are few records of the Holocaust and it was discussed among the party elite. Further, at the time of the Holocaust , we are talking about a totalitarian police state in the middle of a prolonged war for survival against half the world, the average person was worried about getting enough calories and not getting shot by the regime.
I think Christianity was perhaps a necessary cultural condition for the Holocaust because of the tradition of Christian Anti-Semitism , but not a sufficient condition. Paul of Tarsus is the man responsible for freeing what became Christianity from its ethnic origins.. Christians attacked Jews for many reasons other than ancestry, foremost among them envy and greed.
The blood libel was just one of many excuses that were used to justify the attacks. A lot of the NSDAP leadership got into mysticism harking back to ancient German polytheism to justify getting around Christian universalism. Knowledge of the Holocaust was in many cased studiously ignored by those living in the vicinity of the camps, it took Eisenhower and other allied leaders marching the populace through the camps before to make the locals realize what had been going on behind the fences. For those who were aware of what was going on, the subhuman genetic trash nature of the inmates justified their treatment.
How is this not obviously a faith in reason as the Good itself? Atheists continue to argue that the religious impulse is best embodied by the inquisition. Theologian James Cone argued that the lynching of black Americans in the 20th century was a modern day incarnation of the cross, likening the cross to the lynching tree. The political and power-mad incarnation of religion has nothing to do with the inherent truth of its symbols in relation to human suffering.
If we forego the supernatural and see religion merely as a literary device, so be it. But to characterize it as tribalistic and murderous of the innocent is to characterize Pilate, not Christ.
It is simply inane to imply that reason allows us to avoid crucifying the innocent. Where is the evidence for this? Today, the priests of reason such as Steven Pinker argue for blind magical thinking — a third way politics and a baseless optimism that utterly ignores the two deepest tail risks to human civilization, nuclear war and climate change. I think a lot of people are nervous about dethroning Judeo-Christian principles because Reason has no codified morality. Christianity, in spite of its past failings, has been largely self-correcting due to having a codified morality and has served western civilization very well.
How will Reason perform in a society devoid of religiosity and the codified morality that organized religion provides? Could we not use reason to determine that human dignity is a figment of our imagination and that we should work towards the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?
As the author points out, reason is simply a tool. Just listen to people like Yuval Harari, who basically envisions a society were our understanding of the human brain has evolved to the point where we can simply make the equivalent of soma and that we should strive for a society where we have machines doing most of the manual labor and the masses are strung out on dope He sees nothing wrong with this since in his rationalistic view, we are nothing more than a pile of synapses and happiness is nothing but chemical potentials inside our head.
There are also humanist values rooted in our humanity. Naturalistic fallacy — or are you just being selective with your values? Cannibalism is no less human than altruistic self-sacrifice. Those humanist values are even more clearly religious than plain old atheism.
The problem with humanist values is that their authority rests on… humans. All you need to amend, revise, or omit those values is power. That is, it was given by God, a moral lawgiver whose power and authority cannot be trumped. His excuse is that all systems have presuppositions. Who says? Does humanity need God? Time will tell, but in the mean time we all have to put our faith in something. Scandinavia is still running on the fumes of its devoutly-Christian past.
Give it 50 more years. Someone has already answered this.
Furthermore, you actually proved my point, then called it a non-sequitor. Might DOES make right. I believe it see my previous post. Science believes it see Darwin.
You believe it see majority-based ethics. God believes it see the Bible. A creator God can of course compel things to act as he wishes. Obviously Darwinian evolution is not morally prescriptive. That was tongue-in-cheek. No atheist claims it to be immoral when a lion kills a rival male in order to maintain access to a female. Moral sentiments are a variation of aesthetic sentiments. Moral language is thus a report of whether we like or dislike something. A lion is not morally salient. Again, moral language is about what we like and dislike.
So, to answer: Plenty of people will dislike such behaviour and want societies where such behaviour is suppressed. So yes, most people would regard it as immoral. But, what about societies where such behavior is not suppressed, but praised? When Solzhenitsyn is trying to figure out how Russian communities so quickly turned into minefields of whispering informants that ratted out, plundered, imprisoned, and executed so many of its own innocent countrymen, he says,.