PZ Watch 4.19.10

PZ Meyers Explains Science and Religion in a Q&A:

”1. Can science provide a morality to change the world?

NO.
Science merely describes what is, not what should be, and it also takes a rather universal view: science as science takes no sides on matters relevant to a particular species, and would not say that an ape is more important than a mouse is more important than a rock. Don't ask science to tell you what to do when making some fine-grained moral decision, because that is not what science is good at.
What science is, is a policeman of the truth. What it's very good at is telling you when a moral decision is being made badly, in opposition to the facts.
….
However, I would suggest that science would also concede that we as a species ought to support a particular moral philosophy, not because it is objectively superior, but because it is subjectively the proper emphasis of humanity...and that philosophy is humanism. In the same way, of course, we'd also suggest that cephalopods would ideally follow the precepts of cephalopodism.”

Cephalopodism as a natural behavior is likely to be individual self-focused, not the forced elitiist focus on the denial of self for the “benefit of the species as a whole” as is called for by humanism. Humanism goes against the individual’s self-interest, and is enforced by the enlightened elite. This is not speculation, it is based on the facts of the grand humanist experiments of the last century. It can happen no other way because it is to no one’s specific benefit, except for the elite class. This is not new. The hundreds of millions dead due to prior humanist / elitist experiments attest to it.

”So don't look to science for a moral philosophy: look to humanism. Humanism says that we should strive to maximize the long-term welfare and happiness of humans; that we should look to ourselves, not to imaginary beings in the sky or to the imperatives written down in old books, to aspire to something better, something more coherent and successful at promoting our existence on the planet.

Science wouldn't disagree. But it would be a kind of passive agreement that says, sure, nothing in that idea is in violation of reality, go for it. “

PZ’s wish is for something better, more coherent and successful. Freedom, education in the principles of logic and rational thought, personal responsibility for one’s actions and consequences, pursuit of one’s own interests, these social constructs don’t work well for the elites.

Especially the coherent part. PZ and his cohorts do not like dissent, unless it is them doing it: it is not coherent. Read the next part.

”2. Are science, religion, and communism complementary, conflictual or mutually exclusive of one another?

Science and religion are definitely in conflict. Again, science is only acting as a policeman, though: it's firing up the sirens and flashing lights to pull over the priests and tell them that claiming authority on the basis of an imaginary man in the sky is fallacious and discredits your entire paradigm. Rethink the basis of your beliefs, and maybe we can get along. “

Policeman? Pulling over the religious? I must reject my dissent from his views in order to “get along”? This is a fearful statement coming from a Humanist elitist. The history of the world, 1900 to 2000, should place this comment in perspective. The idea of science as the policeman for Humanism should run a chill up every spine.

”3. How will we motivate people, and with what moral paradigm to change the world?

As I've said repeatedly, science doesn't provide a morality. What it does provide, and what I optimistically and subjectively think will motivate people, is that it provides rigor and a path to the truth of the world. I know, I could be cynical and suggest that what people really want is delusions, distractions, and reassurances to help them hide away from reality -- but what I've noticed is that people who accept reality seem to be better able to deal with it, and are often happier and more content. And further, they are better prepared to change the actual world, rather than burying themselves deeper in their fantasies.”

The persistent lie from the Atheist playbook is that by not accepting a limit to reality according to their (unprovable) “truth of the world”, one is living in a fantasy due to needing the narcotic of delusions for personal happiness. Yet, a great many scientists, silent on their beliefs by professional necessity, are not in agreement with Atheism, or Philosophical Materialism. What PZ notices is only that which he wishes to notice; he now considers himself a sociologist, as well as a biology teacher. Atheists are “happier and more content”? Where is the data?

But this is important: being prepared to “change the world” is not an asset if the agent of change is a humanist. Beware humanists bearing “change”.