RE: New Levels of Low
November 8, 2013 at 7:03 pm
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2013 at 7:03 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Equilax, why is it necessary for you to call me a liar? If I misunderstand someone’s point and respond in error that doesn’t make me or, if the situation is reversed, you a dishonest person.
With that said, I unequivocally stated that science was neutral. I believe if you had read my post more carefully you would have seen that I never said anything about science being inherently racist. With respect to the larger point, evolutionary concepts like “survival of the fittest” have been used to justify racism in the form of Social Darwinism.
I sincerely believe that the secular society was not the origin of today’s moral sensibilities. If it was, secular humanism would have independently developed its own moral system. It did not. It rejected God then piggy-backed on the already existing moral system, like how Thomas Jefferson edited out all the NT miracles to leave only the moral teachings of Jesus. Humanism is not responsible for discouraging eugenics, but rather the remnants of unacknowledged religious conscience.
Of course I already hear the objection that religion co-opted the Man’s evolved moral sense in pre-history. Perhaps. But there is not proof that such was the case. (And we’re all about evidence and proof here aren’t we?). Whereas we can see secular humanists even today trying to rationalize their acceptance of traditional morals without giving credit their Judeo-Christian source.
With that said, I unequivocally stated that science was neutral. I believe if you had read my post more carefully you would have seen that I never said anything about science being inherently racist. With respect to the larger point, evolutionary concepts like “survival of the fittest” have been used to justify racism in the form of Social Darwinism.
I sincerely believe that the secular society was not the origin of today’s moral sensibilities. If it was, secular humanism would have independently developed its own moral system. It did not. It rejected God then piggy-backed on the already existing moral system, like how Thomas Jefferson edited out all the NT miracles to leave only the moral teachings of Jesus. Humanism is not responsible for discouraging eugenics, but rather the remnants of unacknowledged religious conscience.
Of course I already hear the objection that religion co-opted the Man’s evolved moral sense in pre-history. Perhaps. But there is not proof that such was the case. (And we’re all about evidence and proof here aren’t we?). Whereas we can see secular humanists even today trying to rationalize their acceptance of traditional morals without giving credit their Judeo-Christian source.
