Rationalism is a religion.

(August 15, 2023 at 12:28 am)MarcusA Wrote: Rationalism is a religion.

Here's the definition Google gives me:

Quote:Definitions from Oxford Languages

rationalism
noun

the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

"scientific rationalism"

PHILOSOPHY
the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.

THEOLOGY
the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion.

To me this lacks some of the qualities of a religion. But I may be wrong. 

Are you thinking of something more than the definition points to?

Lamarckism is rubbish, therefore rationalism is rubbish. Richard Dawkins has danced around the idea of eugenics for as long as I have known about him.

And convince me if you can that the colour green is the colour green.

Contact Roy G. Biv for color confirmation.

(August 15, 2023 at 1:41 am)MarcusA Wrote: Lamarckism is rubbish, therefore rationalism is rubbish.  

Non sequitur.

Quote:Richard Dawkins has danced around the idea of eugenics for as long as I have known about him.

This is what happens when people take quotes out of context. Simply because Dawkins talks about eugenics doesn't mean Dawkins supports eugenics.

Boru

More fundamentally, the problem with eugenics isn't that it's false, but that it's undesirable. A person suggesting that we can be bred for purpose or traits just like any other animal isn't saying something untrue, they're saying a true thing we find abhorrent for any number of cultural and historical reasons. Nothing about eugenics indicts rationalism. I do have some sympathy for the idea that rationalism is becoming a religion. Not in the classical sense - but - that's to be expected. A religion suitable for people brought up in todays culture is unlikely to share much with religions suitable for bronze age o early iron age minds from which the definition of the same proceeds.

Nowadays, even the traditionally religious have a tendency to base their ideas about a good life and how to live it on rational premises (or at least a rationalizing impulse). In this, the focus of religion has ceased to be the wishes of the divine and become an item of present conditions. It's not enough, for example, for christian theocrats to simply say that god doesn't like x y or z. They also feel the need to claim that this x y z is ruining america. A purely "religious" ideology, in the sense of any separation, wouldn't give two shits if doing a thing was ruining america or not. If doing what a god wanted ruined america then so be it. This isn't an entirely new phenomena, ofc, I just use it as representative of the interaction.

Rationalism-as-religion would be the strict adherence to exclusively rational statements about how to live our lives. Little care or deference would be given to the purely subjective or the emotional aspects of our lives that inform the same. I strongly doubt our ability to come up with an entirely rational religion...or to genuinely engage in rationalism-as-religion. Instead, we flirt with it, and try to apply it as a filter.

(August 15, 2023 at 6:30 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: More fundamentally, the problem with eugenics isn't that it's false, but that it's undesirable.  A person suggesting that we can be bred for purpose or traits just like any other animal isn't saying something untrue, they're saying a true thing we find abhorrent for any number of cultural and historical reasons.  Nothing about eugenics indicts rationalism.  I do have some sympathy for the idea that rationalism is becoming a religion.  Not in the classical sense - but - that's to be expected.  A religion suitable for people brought up in todays culture is unlikely to share much with religions suitable for bronze age o early iron age minds from which the definition of the same proceeds.  

Nowadays, even the traditionally religious have a tendency to base their ideas about a good life and how to live it on rational premises (or at least a rationalizing impulse).  In this, the focus of religion has ceased to be the wishes of the divine and become an item of present conditions.  It's not enough, for example, for christian theocrats to simply say that god doesn't like x y or z.  They also feel the need to claim that this x y z is ruining america.  A purely "religious" ideology, in the sense of any separation, wouldn't give two shits if doing a thing was ruining america or not.  If doing what a god wanted ruined america then so be it.  This isn't an entirely new phenomena, ofc, I just use it as representative of the interaction.

Rationalism-as-religion would be the strict adherence to exclusively rational statements about how to live our lives.  Little care or deference would be given to the purely subjective or the emotional aspects of our lives that inform the same.  I strongly doubt our ability to come up with an entirely rational religion...or to genuinely engage in rationalism-as-religion.  Instead, we flirt with it, and try to apply it as a filter.

(Bold mine)

Which pretty neatly describes Dawkins' views on the matter. He was excoriated for saying, '[Eugenics] works with cows, pigs, and horses, so why wouldn't it work with humans?' This is a far cry from advocating a programme of selective breeding for humans and culling the undesirables.

Boru

Yeah, it's unfortunate. I think the main reply is that eugenics -as a political program- doesn't work..but that's probably because the eugenicists tend to be more interested in racial purity™ and social ills than the genetic health of the population.

We already engage in ad hoc eugenics as sexual selectors. I'd be surprised to find anyone hitting the bricks in search of the dumbest, ugliest, and least fit mate....but I don't wanna kinkshame, so...

(August 15, 2023 at 7:18 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Yeah, it's unfortunate.  I think the main reply is that eugenics -as a political program- doesn't work..but that's probably because the eugenicists tend to be more interested in racial purity™ and social ills than the genetic health of the population.

We already engage in ad hoc eugenics as sexual selectors.  I'd be surprised to find anyone hitting the bricks in search of the dumbest, ugliest, and least fit mate....but I don't wanna kinkshame, so...

For every scraggly horse, there's a scraggly bush to tie it to.