Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
Really? What is your source for this very strange claim?
And in what way is it relevant for Texas? Or do you mean that because the US kind of let that genocide continue on purpose it is relevant? (source: Samatha Power: 'A Problem from Hell': America and the Age of Genocide).
|
It's not a strange comment. To explain why will take a long post, please bear with me and read to the end...
My observational definition of a "secular humanist" is a person who eschews all common religions (and is usually an atheist) and tries to live by rational decisions. Strictly observational, not doctrinal.
For all the people who pride themselves on their rationality, we'll use mathematics as the starting point. I think we can all agree that mathematics is strictly rational. It is totally moral free, as well, as I will describe.
What is 2 + 2 equal? 4? I say 10, but I can live with 11. Why not? They're all correct. It all has to do with your underlying postulates. 2 + 2 = 11 is correct - for number in base 3. 2 + 2 = 10 is correct in base 4. 2 + 2 = 4 is correct for base 5 and above.
This isn't cheating. All mathematics have to a starting set of assumptions, called postulates (or axioms). Which set is right? Why, all of them! Each one leads to a different mathematics. Euclidean Geometry was based on a particular set of assumptions, change one of the assumptions and, voila, a new non-Euclidean geometry. The only way to say whether a mathematic is "valid" is if it's calculations match up with some measurements in the "real world". If they don't, they may not be "valid" but they're still perfectly rational, and may match up with something somewhere in the Multiverse (or Macrocosmic All, if your prefer).
The underlying reason (rationality) is the same, but the results are wildly different, because the postulates are different.
So...
(Parodying the Capital One Barbarian Commercials)
What's in your postulate base?
You can be a total rational person, as we mathematically describe it, and still be a genocidal monster. If your postulate base says that the only reason why the Marxism dialectic had failed in history was because of an unwillingness to follow the Communist Manifesto to it's logical extreme, without any mercy for people who didn't follow the worldview, and you get Pol Pot. Rationality isn't the cause, it's the method. The cause is the postulates.
The rationalists here, want to make the irrational religious postulates go away. Stamp them out, because they are irrational. Read the posts. I don't think I missing the points they brought up.
The one advantage of those irrational religious postulates is that they are OPEN. They believers/followers will cheerfully hand you a copy of them. You can easily know what they are. Just read them.
I can't learn the postulate bases of the posters who complain about the Texas book choices. They seem to be carefully hidden, perhaps even from themselves. They seem to pride themselves on their rationality, but that doesn't explain anything. What do they think something is right and wrong, and why? If you keep peeling at the onion (so to speak), you get the Munchausen Trilemma, which always ends at the postulate base. I believe this is correct because I believe. Period. And it doesn't matter whether you're talking the Ten Commandments or Fabian Socialism. (Or Mayan theology, for that matter.)
That's why I mentioned the killing fields of Cambodia. As a reminder to all rationalists that it isn't the rationality (or lack thereof) where the problems are, it's the postulate base. And that vicious, evil, people aren't just limited to the groups they don't respect or write off (stupid or misguided or insane). They can be just as rational as you are, and even share many of your postulate bases (though not all)...and be a whole lot more nasty. All you have to do is change a few underlying beliefs, (none of which you can rational prove to be true), and run it through the same rationality.....
And THAT"S something every school kid REALLY needs to learn.