If I were an Atheist

[AdamLOV]

The point is that scientific and religious "facts" alike are constructed by the truth-building activities of specialists. What becomes truth is what has gone through officially sanctioned channels of translation...[A]mong the Inca, priests decides what constituted evidence of, say, a dog having mystical properties. The two systems of knowledge are different, but neither may be considered any less true. Because truth (and truth criteria) are social constructs does not make them invalid...

I thoroughly subscribe to this point of view. Without absolute truth standards to say that "science is true while religion is false" makes no sense. However, it's also true that you can't do a bioassay using Inca methods. I don't want my doctors to get stupid and prescribe religious healing for my leg abscess when religion isn't the appropriate tool. We can say objectively that Inca healing tools were much less effective than modern medicine when it comes to prolonging life and physiological health.

That is most probably correct, although we have no reliable data on life expectancy in the Inca Empire. The real issue is whether a culture attaches significance to prolonging life at all costs. It stands to reason that cultures capable of prolonging life develop methods of doing so, but this says nothing about whether prolonging the human lifespan is actually, morally speaking, "good". The goodness of such procedures is something we ourselves attach to life-prolonging prostheses and operations. Therefore secular, techno-scientific societies cannot be considered "better" than the Inca Empire or hunter-gatherer societies. Rather, they are more effective at prolonging human life. That said, someone even more skeptical than us could interject that because of the inevitable overpopulation that corresponds to heightened effectiveness of medicine, the longevity of current generations could very well have been attained at the cost.of significantly shortening the lifespan of homo sapiens as a whole. The technology that prolongs the lives of human individuals now is manufactured, for the most part, in ecologically unsustainable ways. Therefore it could easily be the case that from a species perspective, societies based on techno-scientific rationality are not even more effective than,say, hunter-gatherer societies.

[downbeatplumb]

The point is that scientific and religious "facts" alike are constructed by the truth-building activities of specialists. What becomes truth is what has gone through officially sanctioned channels of translation. (This in no way implies that there is no reality outside of human cognition, merely that our own decisions about what is true are relative).

The thing with science is that it is something that could conceivably be checked by other people. I may have to do a bit of research and get some tools but it is way of getting to truths dispassionately.

Religious "facts" are...... actually what is a religious "fact"? To be a fact you need evidence and religions don't have any, just very poor arguments. 

We may take the example of lab rats. For a member of, say, a tribe that believes in animism, dissecting lab rats and inputing the data into computers is meaningless.

What's your point?

 Various biological concepts are not sources of knowledge for the Inca.

So?

Similarly, one who is not a molecular biologist has no idea about what is going on when lab rats are dissected, and data is obtained from their entrails and uploaded into computers. What constitutes relevant evidence is decides by scientists.

So you have a problem with educated people.
This would appear to be an argument FOR ignorance.
Forgetting that science works and religions don't.

 Similarly, among the Inca, priests decides what constituted evidence of, say, a dog having mystical properties. The two systems of knowledge are different, but neither may be considered any less true. Because truth (and truth criteria) are social constructs does not make them invalid. Every assemblage, including truth assemblages (religion, science) are constructed by human and/or nonhuman actants. In a nutshell, this is the basic kernel of Latour-Woolgar's argument.

Truth is not a social construct.
What is true is not a matter of opinion or popularity contest what is true just is.
Science is the only method that works to get to the truth of matters because it has been made that way. The technigue refined over centuries so it now works fairly well. Its not perfect but it is better than the what went before which boiled down to what some people reckoned and ended up some some stupid beliefs like the ether and humors.

[AdamLOV]

The thing with science is that it is something that could conceivably be checked by other people. I may have to do a bit of research and get some tools but it is way of getting to truths dispassionately.

Religious "facts" are...... actually what is a religious "fact"? To be a fact you need evidence and religions don't have any, just very poor arguments. 


What's your point?


So?


So you have a problem with educated people.
This would appear to be an argument FOR ignorance.
Forgetting that science works and religions don't.

Truth is not a social construct.
What is true is not a matter of opinion or popularity contest what is true just is.
Science is the only method that works to get to the truth of matters because it has been made that way. The technigue refined over centuries so it now works fairly well. Its not perfect but it is better than the what went before which boiled down to what some people reckoned and ended up some some stupid beliefs like the ether and humors.

Everyone thinks their own method is the best one... until a rival scientist comes along and disproves that method. Truth is only truth as long as it is accepted by every player in the science/sports/religion/language game. A rule is only a rule as long as we all and sincerely agree that it applies to the reality we inhabit. Now one may believe in a certain truth (I believe that God is absent from this dimension, I believe the universe is composed, for the most part, of black holes because physicist's calculations), but absolute knowledge is impossible. Truth is, at best, transient. Even the truth of my saying this might be disproved, but I see no proof for the claim of objective truth. I would repeat that merely because truth is a social construct does not entail that it should be considered unvalid. All this recognition entails is that truths must be considered on their own terms. Inca medicine should be analyzed based on its own promises and criteria. Similarly, Western medicine can only be evaluated based on criteria it itself has developed.

---

I have no problem with educated people. I do, however, take issue with people who have been educated in a particular manner and feel superior to those who have been educated in a different way, in the context of a different culture. The two should not be treated as unequal, otherwise this would be cultural imperialism of a particularly risible variety.

[Hatshepsut]

...although we have no reliable data on life expectancy in the Inca Empire. The real issue is whether a culture attaches significance to prolonging life at all costs. ...The technology that prolongs the lives of human individuals now is manufactured, for the most part, in ecologically unsustainable ways. ...it could easily be the case that ...[industrial] societies...are not...more effective than...hunter-gatherer societies.

There is a downside to the way we do things, and a risk that our plump, flush days of easy living may be numbered. For Egypt, life expectancy at birth was around 15 to 20 years, with kids surviving their first 5 years usually reaching age 30 or so. This was probably a shorter lifespan than for most hunter-gatherers. Egyptian agricultural society meant low dietary diversity, worms, smallpox, lots of flies and shit, dirty drinking water. Infant mortality was high for pre-civilized humans but in Egypt death rates were high at all ages, with only the elites having even fair chances to see an old age. Getting civilized marked a step back health-wise; it doesn't seem we bettered the life expectancy of Cro-Magnon peoples until about the 18th century.

Yet epidemiology discovered some low-tech measures, like keeping feces buried away from flies and drinking water, washing hands, and providing basic nursing care to the sick which added years to life expectancy without any medical heroics. We could probably sustain a high technology society if we just agreed to limit our populations, a step governments have been reluctant to take.

Obviously there are value questions involved, on which reasonable people can differ. But young folks if offered a choice tend not to choose an early human lifestyle (fulltime as opposed to hobby) over a modern one. Traditional societies have a problem with their children leaving for the city.

Truth is not a social construct. What is true is not a matter of opinion or popularity contest...Science is the only method that works to get to the truth of matters...

This may be a definitional matter, but truth is not the same thing as fact. Established facts don't change with popular opinion, but truth, which has a large interpretive component, does show dependency on culture and point of view. Science seems to be the best tool for getting at certain kinds of truth, usually when questions arise about how matter or biological systems work. To declare only these questions and answers within the purview of truth is rather limiting.

For instance, Americans subscribe to a truth that they are free. But are we really freer than members of any other society? In certain ways, including uncensored political expression, perhaps yes. But in other ways, perhaps no. We have to work longer hours and have less time to spend with family and friends than people in some traditional cultures, or even in Europe. Our law enforcement and penal institutions are among the planet's most retributive, in a long-term sense, with a variety of minor behaviors classified as felonies, rampant shooting of suspects by police, and branding of offenders with labels likely to compromise them for life, in contrast to some countries which are more forgiving in that regard.

[dahrling]

Americans believe that they are "free", that doesn't mean that they truly are. What is "free" anyway? Americans can't do whatever they want. We know this. But is doing whatever you want freedom? Where do we draw the line? The truth is based on what is, what exists, not what we think or understand of what is or what exists.

[AdamLOV]

...although we have no reliable data on life expectancy in the Inca Empire. The real issue is whether a culture attaches significance to prolonging life at all costs. ...The technology that prolongs the lives of human individuals now is manufactured, for the most part, in ecologically unsustainable ways. ...it could easily be the case that ...[industrial] societies...are not...more effective than...hunter-gatherer societies.

There is a downside to the way we do things, and a risk that our plump, flush days of easy living may be numbered. For Egypt, life expectancy at birth was around 15 to 20 years, with kids surviving their first 5 years usually reaching age 30 or so. This was probably a shorter lifespan than for most hunter-gatherers. Egyptian agricultural society meant low dietary diversity, worms, smallpox, lots of flies and shit, dirty drinking water. Infant mortality was high for pre-civilized humans but in Egypt death rates were high at all ages, with only the elites having even fair chances to see an old age. Getting civilized marked a step back health-wise; it doesn't seem we bettered the life expectancy of Cro-Magnon peoples until about the 18th century.

Yet epidemiology discovered some low-tech measures, like keeping feces buried away from flies and drinking water, washing hands, and providing basic nursing care to the sick which added years to life expectancy without any medical heroics. We could probably sustain a high technology society if we just agreed to limit our populations, a step governments have been reluctant to take.

Obviously there are value questions involved, on which reasonable people can differ. But young folks if offered a choice tend not to choose an early human lifestyle (fulltime as opposed to hobby) over a modern one. Traditional societies have a problem with their children leaving for the city.

Truth is not a social construct. What is true is not a matter of opinion or popularity contest...Science is the only method that works to get to the truth of matters...

This may be a definitional matter, but truth is not the same thing as fact. Established facts don't change with popular opinion, but truth, which has a large interpretive component, does show dependency on culture and point of view. Science seems to be the best tool for getting at certain kinds of truth, usually when questions arise about how matter or biological systems work. To declare only these questions and answers within the purview of truth is rather limiting.

For instance, Americans subscribe to a truth that they are free. But are we really freer than members of any other society? In certain ways, including uncensored political expression, perhaps yes. But in other ways, perhaps no. We have to work longer hours and have less time to spend with family and friends than people in some traditional cultures, or even in Europe. Our law enforcement and penal institutions are among the planet's most retributive, in a long-term sense, with a variety of minor behaviors classified as felonies, rampant shooting of suspects by police, and branding of offenders with labels likely to compromise them for life, in contrast to some countries which are more forgiving in that regard.

Both truth and facts do show a tendency to vary. As for modern young people "choosing" modern lifestyles instead of traditional ones, this can hardly decide anything at all, at least from a "truth" perspective. Social phsychology, such as cognitive dissonance research has highlighted that most human beings cannot exercize choice even when given the opportunity. Humans have evolved to value stability over freedom. For most humans who have lived, perhaps the majority of those inhabiting the world today, stability has been far more important than the freedom to decide. After all, we might not be able to decide. It could even be the case that there is no Self that is doing the hypothetical "deciding" (for more on this from a philosophical perspective: Giles, James. "The no-self theory: Hume, Buddhism, and personal identity." Philosophy East and West (1993): 175-200.) Therefore the so-called choices made by individuals "choosing" certain lifestyles do not give us much information about which lifestyle is, ethically speaking, the "better" one. There may or may not be one ideal lifestyle, and even if nobody elects to live such a life, it would still be the best lifestyle of all.

[Hatshepsut]

There may or may not be one ideal lifestyle, and even if nobody elects to live such a life, it would still be the best lifestyle of all.

Would a lifestyle that doesn't currently exist be a real lifestyle? That sounds like an Aristotelian thing, as when he said "All A are B" implies "Some A are B" unless, of course, the class A is empty.

[AdamLOV]

There may or may not be one ideal lifestyle, and even if nobody elects to live such a life, it would still be the best lifestyle of all.

Would a lifestyle that doesn't currently exist be a real lifestyle? That sounds like an Aristotelian thing, as when he said "All A are B" implies "Some A are B" unless, of course, the class A is empty.

Something can exist potentially, symbolically, metaphorically. There is no need to restrict existence to the entirety of those objects that exist "objectively" (i.e. in a way that is detectable to scientific translation machines). This latter would be a far too narrow concept of existence.

[Mister Agenda]

Why a forum? Because some 70% of people on the planet believe in fairy tales, believe so strong they'll make people miserable over it or even kill over it.

Atheists need support. Can you imagine not being able to tell even your family your most basic beliefs, or lack of, because you may be disowned or even killed?

... No, making no claims is not a dodge. ... I can reject the claim without denying it.

"Reject" and "deny" look like synonyms, but I'll take it you mean that you can reject a claim without advancing a counterclaim, which indeed you can do. Not making a claim is not itself a dodge. The duck dips when someone in fact is making a claim but denies doing so. I can't say about you in particular, but I do see this frequently. On the field of fantastic flowers, I'm afraid I would wilt of terminal boredom were there no fairy tales; however I promise I won't kill anyone over it.  

All people need support. The despicable phenomenon where mothers and fathers turn away from their children, or vice-versa, over religion or politics is unfortunately too common. In Utah there's a support group for disowned offspring of Mormon households. Though it's less common among Mormons than it was 40 years ago. And, as with O'Hair's disinheriting her own son for conversion to Christ, it can occasionally go the other direction as well. I don't assert that having this forum is wrong, only that a forum without claims seems improbable.

I wasn't aware that forums making claims was even a thing. Isn't it a discussion board where everyone can express their opinions freely within certain bounds of civility? The title seems intended to attract members with certain interests. I've heard of forums where members must attest that they have certain beliefs, but this certainly isn't one of them.

[robvalue]

Americans believe that they are "free", that doesn't mean that they truly are. What is "free" anyway? Americans can't do whatever they want. We know this. But is doing whatever you want freedom? Where do we draw the line? The truth is based on what is, what exists, not what we think or understand of what is or what exists.

http://youtu.be/HRRkMOlYBhQ