(April 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm)smax Wrote: Finally, we are getting somewhere. Now I understand what your motivation is, and why it is that you posed such a ridiculous question. And, actually, I still don't get the "shared humanity" inquiry, but I'll address it nonetheless.
You, I presume, are a human being. I am a human being. We share this. Pretty damn simple.
You are saying we share a biological identity, i.e. we are both human beings. No 'struggle' is necessary to 'preserve' this 'pretty damn simple' scientific observation.
(April 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm)smax Wrote: Why you would asked the importance of preserving it is equally puzzling to me.
See above.
(April 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm)smax Wrote: Is it your take that the human race is better off extinct?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about the extinction of our sepcies, one day, it will happen. That is a fact of evolution, it's got nothing to do with any notion of being 'better off', that is an irrelevance.
But - and this is the interesting bit - to you it is relevant. To you, against all scientific reason, there is a 'struggle' to be had in 'preserving' our 'shared humanity'.
If scientific reasoning is not behind your belief in its relevance (and we have seen that it can't be) then it must be worth investigating what is.
(April 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm)smax Wrote: As for your comparison of my views to that of Judeo/Christians, again, this is baseless. You're obviously making lots of ridiculous assumptions because you're offended that I would even have the gall to question the great Richard Dawkins. As such, I must have some hidden Christian agenda that even escapes me.
Dawkins is a competent evolutionary biologist and I recognise him as such. Other than that his philosophical ideas and especially his arguements against religions are weak and I find him tiresome and poorly informed. He is certainly not above criticism and I'm first in line when it comes to taking his debates apart. 'Great Richard Dawkins'... no, certainly not.
As for my comparison of your position with Judao/Christian morality, I think we have removed any scientific support for your position and it remains to be seen what lies beneath.
(April 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm)smax Wrote: Clearly you buy into the idea that all human beings are innately selfish, and that there is nothing wrong with that.
I disagree, and I happen to think that idealogy is counter-productive.
At the same time, I don't subscribe to any notion that morality is a god-given sense either.
As I said before, I believe that people generally have a sense of survival, not only of self, but also of their race and species.
In fact, it's been proven time and time again.
Isn't the idea of 'preserving' our 'shared humanity' a little selfish, or is being selfish 'counter-productive'?
You seem to be suffering from moral dissonance.
Morality is not derrived from scientific endeavour, as we all know science is disinterested enquiry (or so it claims to be), there exists a perception that technology provides us with a moral structure but this is a myth, technology is neither good nor bad, it is the use to which humans put it that is measured against an existing morality that provides us with this value system.
So, the question remains what morality has informed your value system?
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
