Genetic Superiority

[theleftone]

I was having a private message discussion with an individual who informed me I was incapable of understanding their reasoning because I was genetically inferior. They likened trying to explain the concepts to me was like explaining mathematics to a dog. Hence, I thought this idea might be a good topic for debate.


Questions for debate:

Is there a such thing as genetic superiority? If so, what is it? How do we know it's "superior?" How do we determine if one's genetic make-up is superior to another? If one is genetically superior, is it acceptable behavior to belittle the inferior with the concept? What are some other ethical and moral implications of the concept?

Addendum (edit): Another question. Is it possible to have genetically superior intellect and be capable of understand concepts which genetically inferiors cannot understand?

[Rob]

So Harvey, you don't think that increasing numbers of the "middle class" are finding it harder and harder to afford healthcare?

I have little to disagree with you here, so what exactly are you responding to?

Given the history of the so-called Christian majority's role in politics over the last few decades, I think there is good reason to be more suspicious of the mixing of religion and politics, as evidenced in the effort of the "moral majority" to use "government to launch" their religious beliefs (in the name of "family values") down the throat of others, than professors telling their students to be skeptical of God.

By the way, was that in a philosophy class? And was it one professor or more than one professor, and were they saying be skeptical of God or "religious beliefs" about God? And what does government have to do with the hiring and firing of professors in public institutions? Isn't that more a matter of the current academic and intellectual environment within our educational institutions and the administration of their tenured system than the whims of whatever political party is in power at any given point in time? I don't dispute the fact that there has been a history of an increasingly secularized and materialistic trend in the philosophical outlook of western academic institutions. This trend is open to historical investigation. It goes back to the efforts of intellectuals to break free fom the totalitarian hold of the medieval Christian church. It required great effort and struggle to free the scientific, political, and philosophical thinking of Western civilization from the ecclesiastical domination by the institutionalized Christian church. After all, it was just this protest against the domination of the medieval sholastics of the Christian church that gave birth to modern secularism. And it is a well documented history that a small group went on to found a militant form of atheistic-science, that not only sought to free thinking from the totalitarian hold of the church, but went on to launch a militant attack against God himself.

I disupute the claim that this current secular-humanistic climate within Western academic institutions is due to the use of government to launch attacks on so-called "majority Christian values." Rather, I see it as having its roots in past history and the failure of the Christian tradition to respond in relevant and intelligent ways to the evolving insights and knowledge brought forth from the scientific enterprise and the philosophical implications thereform, and by increasingly compromising its values in support of an econimic system that fosters the profit motive over the service motive.

To wit my having to sit through a sermon by a minister not long ago where he literally intepreted scripture that God commanded the slaughter of men, women, and children in the "conquest" of Jericho, while the modern archeological evidence conclusively proves that Jerico lay completely abandoned during the period of this so-called "conquest" and was actually now well-attested to have been destroyed much earlier by the Egyptian campaigns in the course of expelling the Asiatic "Hyksos" from Eygypt. Of course, fundamentalists can take some comfort that indeed it was a stupendous "miracle" that Joshua destroyed a site that was not even there!

Exactly what Christian values are really the mojority in America? Those same values that sponsor an economic system that tolerates corporations that put profits ahead of social well being, and seems to sponsor a society which staggers under the guilt of tolerating science without idealism, politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without restraint, knowledge without character, power without conscience, and industry without morality.

[harvey1]

I don't dispute the fact that there has been a history of an increasingly secularized and materialistic trend in the philosophical outlook of western academic institutions. This trend is open to historical investigation. It goes back to the efforts of intellectuals to break free fom the totalitarian hold of the medieval Christian church.

Be that as it may, I think that the public has paid for a lot of secularized crap in recent years, and I wouldn't mind a refund. For example, wasn't the television series Cosmos paid for partly by government money? Why then did that program promote anti-religious beliefs if there's really a separation of Church and State? Would it be a bad idea if PBS refunded money to the taxpayer that was used to support programs that made anti-religious statements? How about NPR? I realize that finally these kind of abuses are now being prevented, but I still haven't seen a check in the mail.

(Btw, I'm being somewhat facetious--I don't really expect monies to be paid back for the secularist sins with public money, but I'm amazed how much of this went on up until very recently.)

[Rob]

I don't dispute the fact that there has been a history of an increasingly secularized and materialistic trend in the philosophical outlook of western academic institutions. This trend is open to historical investigation. It goes back to the efforts of intellectuals to break free fom the totalitarian hold of the medieval Christian church.

Be that as it may, I think that the public has paid for a lot of secularized crap in recent years, and I wouldn't mind a refund. For example, wasn't the television series Cosmos paid for partly by government money? Why then did that program promote anti-religious beliefs if there's really a separation of Church and State?

We are in agreement about the secularization and materialistic trends in Western academic institutions, and I think you are correct that there is a metaphysical philosophy being naively passed off as so-called science. It is the new myth of scientism that is often uncritically put forward for popular public consumption. We see it all the time, such as when Stepen Hawkings pops in to state that life "spontaneiously arises" in the material univese as though this is a matter of known scientific fact in a science program on Discovery Channel called "Alian Planet." Now, of course such pure speculation is outside the domains of known biological scientific fact, and it is really misleading to put someone with the authoritative stature of Stephen Hawkings (who as a mechanistic materialist "believes" this claim) into a so-called science program making such a comment without presenting the counter arguments of world renowned scientists (not creationists mind you, but biologists at that! such as Woese) who respond to such claims by pointing out the real current state of scientific knowledge with regards to such questions cannot support such claims.

But the solution to this problem is not to be found in more so-called "majority Christian values" as exemplified in the political agenda of the so-called "moral Majority," but rather in arguing for more fair and balanced science reporting and attention to the history of science, the philosophy of science, and a the fostering of dialogue between enlightened scientists, philosophers, and religionsists. In other words, the best way to respond to the fallacious claims of scientism is with sound evidence forthcoming from the realm of science itself; including the history and philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion.

I note that scientists in doing science either consciously or unconsiously must utilize philosophical concepts (as all humans do when they form a conceptual worldview), and sometimes they allow their philosophical views (metaphysical materialism) to unduly influence their so-called scientific claims. And visa versa, so too can religionists do the same. And that I think is were the role of critical philosophy comes in; it keeps both scientists and religionists from departing from the facts by critically evaluating their unspoken assumptions, making them explict, and determining if such claims are really supported by the facts. It explores new meanings, and plumbs the depths of values in an attempt to bring to light a better view of reality.

Would it be a bad idea if PBS refunded money to the taxpayer that was used to support programs that made anti-religious statements?

I don't know about you, but I would prefer the rebate on my cable bill. It will be a heck of lot more I bet!

[harvey1]

It is the new myth of scientism that is often uncritically put forward for popular public consumption. We see it all the time, such as when Stepen Hawkings pops in to state that life "spontaneiously arises" in the material univese as though this is a matter of known scientific fact in a science program on Discovery Channel called "Alian Planet." Now, of course such pure speculation is outside the domains of known biological scientific fact, and it is really misleading to put someone with the authoritative stature of Stephen Hawkings (who as a mechanistic materialist "believes" this claim) into a so-called science program making such a comment without presenting the counter arguments of world renowned scientists (not creationists mind you, but biologists at that! such as Woese) who respond to such claims by pointing out the real current state of scientific knowledge with regards to such questions cannot support such claims.

I know exactly what you are saying. Notice these two quotes by Sagan that was quoted in the Cosmos series:

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decided this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed.

The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.

I think that if government money was used for a PBS educational show that stated:

God is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be

Then PBS producers would have hell to pay from the top executives complaining that the producers were promoting religion with public money. I want my money back... Or, as you suggest, at least my cable bills reduced.

[Rob]

It is the new myth of scientism that is often uncritically put forward for popular public consumption. ....

I know exactly what you are saying. Notice these two quotes by Sagan that was quoted in the Cosmos series:

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decided this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed.

The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.

Those are two perfect examples. I think this topic would make a great documentary for PBS This is an example of the new religion[1] of mechanistic materialism, that promises salvation and eternal life in the claim that future science will learn to transplant human consciousness into cyborgs, for after all, we are really nothing more than biologically based computers ourselves, and once science uncovers the material basis of mind-consiousness, it will be able to manipulate it like any other material reality. Hence, eternal life will be found in human cyborgs who are launched to carry civilization into space to colonize other planets.

Believe it or not those very claims were made in one of these so-called science programs on Discovery Channel in which they parade expert after expert across the screen making such grandiose pseudoscientific claims in the name of the new religion of scientism. I guess they decided not to include Penrose in the lineup of stars, since his scientific and philosophical arguments did not fit the directors sci-fi story line and he might of thrown some cold water on these pseudoscientific claims.

Is it any wonder people are so confused about what science is really all about? Between the creationists and such sci-fi pseudoscientific babble what is the average person to think? We insist on truth-in-lending, what about truth-in-science, or truth-in-philosophy, or truth-in-religion?

--------

[1] Given that there are hundreds of definitions of religion, I am partial to the claims made in the Urantia Book that "In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation." (1129.8) And that "True religion is a wholehearted devotion to some reality which the religionist deems to be of supreme value to himself and for all mankind." (1100.3) By this definition, the claims made by some scientists that someday scientists will upload our conscious memory patterns into a cyborg and give us eternal life are indeed a religion with its own message of salvation, its own eschatology, its own set of beliefs that are based in "faith," not fact, and provide a world-view of supreme value which such mechanistic materialists can devote their lives to.

[chachynga]

I was having a private message discussion with an individual who informed me I was incapable of understanding their reasoning because I was genetically inferior. They likened trying to explain the concepts to me was like explaining mathematics to a dog. Hence, I thought this idea might be a good topic for debate.


Questions for debate:

Is there a such thing as genetic superiority? If so, what is it? How do we know it's "superior?" How do we determine if one's genetic make-up is superior to another? If one is genetically superior, is it acceptable behavior to belittle the inferior with the concept? What are some other ethical and moral implications of the concept?

Addendum (edit): Another question. Is it possible to have genetically superior intellect and be capable of understand concepts which genetically inferiors cannot understand?

Sure there is!

White Men Can't Jump!


As far as scripture Goes, it does Go primarily to one race, and also inlcudes all the other races through Faith and obedience to God and his words / Laws, searching diligently to see if things be true, et al.

Yes a certain race is given preference, however they will still be left in the dark when they fail to recognize their sins and repent and stand for truth, and have faith with works et al......

Same token, you can be outside that race, and still come under the umbrella of Christ... he did Buy the Whole world for His Race/Treasure, and all that Come under the protection of his and Fathers way / law / name / nature i.e. real Christians.... they will be given certain gifts depending on things.... and they will be able to see the deeper and the secret things hidden in scripture.

It's all up to your heart, and if you love the truth with all your heart no matter the costs.

That's a start.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is a sack of shit!

Tell them Chachynga said so!

And they can go here to bitch me out:
http://xsorbit30.com/users5/afterbite/i ... board=15.0

[harvey1]

By this definition, the claims made by some scientists that someday scientists will upload our conscious memory patterns into a cyborg and give us eternal life are indeed a religion with its own message of salvation, its own eschatology, its own set of beliefs that are based in "faith," not fact, and provide a world-view of supreme value which such mechanistic materialists can devote their lives to.

I would be very careful of calling a speculation a religious belief. For me, a religious belief entails the belief that a metaphysical order exists which somehow affects our lives in ways that we ought to give some heed to. I don't consider philosophies and speculations to be religion. Now, some people treat their philosophies as a religion, but the name that I would use is that they have a strong (dogmatic?) "ideology." Of course, religion forms naturally in humans, and that's why I think dogmatic ideologies can appear to be religion. But, if we start the trend of calling any ideology as a religion, then the term "religion" sort of loses meaning. Since the term ideology is able to be used, I see no reason to expand the definition of religion to cover deeply held secular beliefs.

[Rob]

By this definition, the claims made by some scientists that someday scientists will upload our conscious memory patterns into a cyborg and give us eternal life are indeed a religion with its own message of salvation, its own eschatology, its own set of beliefs that are based in "faith," not fact, and provide a world-view of supreme value which such mechanistic materialists can devote their lives to.

I would be very careful of calling a speculation a religious belief.

Of course its speculation Harvey. You are missing the whole point I am making. The point is that this "speculation" is part of a "belief system" that is espoused with a wholehearted loyalty and passion (almost evangelism). Its weakness is that is not based in sound science in that it departs from the facts. Even sound philosophy and sound religious beliefs subject to critical philosophical analysis should not depart from the facts.

For me, a religious belief entails the belief that a metaphysical order exists which somehow affects our lives in ways that we ought to give some heed to.

And you don't think the metaphysical materialist who espouses this scientism with a religious fervor is not giving expression to a belief system that they claim affects our lives and all humanties lives, and is worthy of all our devotion? Get real Harvey, that is just what they are doing.

Of course I personally feel this it is unsupported by true science, sound philosophy, and is a false hope based upon misplaced faith.

I don't consider philosophies and speculations to be religion.

Neither do I, and that is not what I said, now, is it. I said one's religion is what one holds to be of supreme value for oneself and all of humankind (and that could be a philosophy); in otherwords that which we would devote our lives to and is greater than ourselves. And for some, this is such stories as painted by those mechanistic materialists that place their hope in eternal life in science someday creating cyborgs and such.

Now, some people treat their philosophies as a religion, but the name that I would use is that they have a strong (dogmatic?) "ideology."

I think it depends. If they devote their lives to some philosophy and think it is of supreme value for themselves and all humankind, and think it worthy of devoting their lives to, perhaps their philosophy is their religion. But not all philosophies are held with such supreme devotion. And just because someone holds a philosophy to be of supreme value does not necessarily mean they must be a dogmatic philosophy; but it could be. The same can be said about religious beliefs. Some Brahmanic philosophies achieved very high levels of abstraction and some devoted their entire lives to pursuing such philosophies, but I would hardly call some of their insights "dogmatic" in the perjorative sense.

How do you distinguish between a dogmatic religious philosophy and a non-dogmatic religious philosophy? And I'm assuming you are using the term dogmatic in the perjorative sense.

Of course, religion forms naturally in humans, and that's why I think dogmatic ideologies can appear to be religion. But, if we start the trend of calling any ideology as a religion, then the term "religion" sort of loses meaning. Since the term ideology is able to be used, I see no reason to expand the definition of religion to cover deeply held secular beliefs.

I agree that "religion forms naturally in humans," and is a part of our evolutionary nature and has been subject to the evolutionary process too. The evolution of human religion from primitive ghost fear up to that supreme realization of the presense of the living divine Spirit indwelling the finite mind is recorded in all the worlds religious traditions.

Personally, I think when the first primitive human first evolved from their dream life a belief in ghosts and a religion based upon ghost fear, they were setting out on that road which would eventually lay the foundations for personally revealed religion, as we see in the increasingly elevated concepts of God in the prophets in the Hebrew scriptures, or in the high philosophic truths attained by the Brahmins, or the Buddhist Sutras.

But I also think "deeply held" beliefs serve the same purpose of traditional religious beliefs. Yes, one's ideology, even Marxism, can become one's supreme devotion, one's religion, if it is deemed to be of supreme value for oneself and all humankind. A false philosophy and religion in my view, destined to fail, but a religion nonetheless.

Marxism had a full-service metaphysical scheme; explanations for origins, history, and destiny, all the functions that traditional religious beliefs have provided. Scientism provides the same; an explanatin of origins, history, and destiny, even the promises and hope of eternal life with no questioning of whether or not the many presuppositions are supported by the facts. How then, do you differentiate such metaphysical schemes from the metaphysical frameworks postulated by Chrstianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism?