Homosexuality [Simetrical vs. Copperknickers]

[Simetrical]

The following exchange just occurred in the science forum:

The people who hate gays, don't believe in science. So this 'discovery' hardly matters to them.

Broad generalizations, huh? I happen to be an Orthodox Jew and am adamantly opposed to tolerance toward homosexuals, but I think most people would consider me quite a believer in science.

I had so much respect for you until now. You of all people should know that homophobia is even more pointless than racism from a scientific point of view, not to mention that you cannot have taken any of what you 'believe' to heart if you know half as much as you seem to. I am ashamed i ever praised such hideous hypocrisy, sir, that a Jew can be a scientist of such high regard in this forum and yet still hold fascist predjudices that killed your kindred 60 years ago.

This is off-topic ― as was the original politics-related comment, really ― and I won't respond to it further here. I might be willing to argue it in the Fight Club (I'm definitely not interested in the giant uninformed spamfest that a Mudpit thread would attract).

So, here we are. I'll begin by giving my personal view on the question of homosexuality. I don't expect to convince anyone of it ― that would entail converting them to my religion, which I'm neither capable enough to do nor inclined to attempt. It serves merely as background for the thesis that follows. If Copperknickers would like to try to dissuade me of my religious beliefs, on the other hand, he's welcome to try, although that's not where I was hoping this discussion would go.

I am an Orthodox Jew. Consequently, I believe that the Jewish Bible is the word of God, and in particular that the Talmudic (and subsequent rabbinic) interpretations of it are definitive. The Bible prohibits anal intercourse between men. Although nearly all of the prohibitions in the Bible are given to Jews only, the Talmud notes that this prohibition is one of the few that is applicable to non-Jews as well. Therefore, according to the tenets of my religion, it is wrong for men to have anal intercourse. It is thus commendable (if not required) for me to oppose such things where possible, along with general sexual immorality.

I do not condone unlawful attacks on homosexuals. Even under a legitimate divinely-ordained religious government such as will exist in messianic times, homosexuality (like other sin) is not punished by humans except through an appropriately-established court system. Although the Bible prescribes a death penalty for sodomy between men, that penalty is only to be administered by the courts. Individuals should do whatever is in their power to discourage sin, but only up to the limits of Jewish law, which of course prohibits assault and so on.

It's also worth noting that I don't hate homosexuals, or even dislike them. Although I believe that what they do is wrong, they're mostly acting in good faith and genuinely believe that what they're doing is okay. It would be wrong for me to hold them against that as a person. That doesn't stop me from trying to correct them through whatever means are available, however, including various forms of punishment. In doing so, I attempt to benefit them by helping to save their souls, as God desires, and even in supporting punishment or suppression of homosexuals I bear them no ill will.

Now, we are fortunate enough to live in a democratic society, and therefore I have the option to use my vote against homosexuals where permitted by our Constitution. I also, of course, have the ability to try to persuade other people to oppose homosexuality, or at least become more moderate in their support of it. The latter is my goal in this debate.

Finally, as many of you know, I am fairly knowledgeable in the sciences. I'm entering a Ph.D. program in mathematics this fall, and am graduating in a couple of months with a B.S. in mathematics and a minor in physics. I am well aware of the fact that the inclination toward homosexuality is mostly determined by genes and prenatal environment, and that nobody consciously chooses who they find attractive. I know that homosexuality has been observed in nature among many different animal species. I don't think that this has any relevance to its morality. Most people wish they could commit murder at least once in their life, and murder is certainly widespread in the animal kingdom, but that doesn't legitimize murder. That which is natural need not be right.

As an important aside before I state my thesis, let me be clear that unless otherwise stated, I use the term homosexuality here to refer to homosexual intercourse. Merely having the desire to engage in homosexual relations is not any more sinful than anyone's illicit sexual desires, and is not particularly wrong or immoral. Only acting on them is. The dual meaning of homosexuality (referring both to an act and a desire) is the cause of a lot of confusion in debates like these.

So anyway, I am going to be attempting to persuade Copperknickers here of the following points:

1. Ignorance is not the cause of homophobia. Homophobes need not be ignorant, and ignorant people need not be homophobes. Although most people who oppose homosexuality are ignorant of the issues, most people who support it are too. The latter happen to be somewhat closer to correct on average, but as much by chance as anything.
2. More broadly, morality is essentially independent of both science and logic. Although reasoning can inform morality, it cannot dictate it. Two people who are entirely rational and agree on every empirical question under the Sun may have radically different moral beliefs, and no amount of arguing will bring them to agree.

Let me begin the debate by dissecting Copperknickers' short post that triggered this challenge:

I had so much respect for you until now. You of all people should know that homophobia is even more pointless than racism from a scientific point of view

And what law of science says that homophobia or racism is wrong? Is there an experimentally-verified law I missed in biology class that tells me who I should be nice to? Perhaps Gauss proved a theorem that black people are okay and so anyone who oppresses them is irrational?

Or perhaps morality is not determined by science at all. Eugenics didn't fall out of favor because it was scientifically disproven. It fell out of favor because theories like Nazism were overturned in favor of things like the civil rights movements, as a purely political matter. Because hearts were swayed, not minds. Only after the tide had turned did anthropologists do a backflip and decide that really racism was scientifically wrong instead of scientifically right. They followed public opinion like obedient dogs for lack of much actual scientific content in their social "science". Most of the "scientific objections" to racism are indeed as irrelevant as those against homophobia. (I don't believe in racial discrimination anyway, but for moral reasons, not scientific ones.)

not to mention that you cannot have taken any of what you 'believe' to heart if you know half as much as you seem to.

You cannot dispute my knowledge, you cannot dispute my sanity, you cannot dispute my rationality, and so you resort to empty claims that I haven't "taken my knowledge to heart". Maybe you should consider the possibility that there are very knowledgeable people who fully understand all the arguments in favor of homosexuality and oppose it anyway.

I am ashamed i ever praised such hideous hypocrisy, sir, that a Jew can be a scientist of such high regard in this forum and yet still hold fascist predjudices that killed your kindred 60 years ago.

Is it really hypocrisy for me to disagree with the Nazis' Final Solution but oppose homosexuals? (The Nazis didn't like homosexuals much either, in fact, but that's not what you're referring to.) I imagine your logic runs something like: I support homophobia, and all prejudice is really the same, so if I'm honest I should be prejudiced against Jews too. But that's clearly silly. Belief that one group is bad is not the same as belief that another is. There is no contradiction between believing homosexuality is wrong and Judaism is right. In fact, I would be a hypocrite if I claimed to be an Orthodox Jew and didn't think homosexuality was wrong!

Actually, I think that (deliberately or not) you were really just arbitrarily comparing me to Nazis because they're usually viewed as the absolute extreme of evil these days. This is just Godwin's Law in action, and by rights you should lose the debate before it even started. For what it's worth, I know quite a number of Holocaust survivors or escapees, including my own grandfather, and I very much doubt any of them cares much for homosexuals.

But let me remind you of one lesson of Nazism. You can have two educated, intelligent, cultured, polite, generous, loyal, honest people, brought up in almost identical cultures, sharing almost exactly the same religious beliefs and fairly similar social beliefs, such that each one of them thinks the other is thoroughly evil. The Nazis were not ignorant. Germany was exceedingly civilized, had one of the world's best university systems, was a strong supporter of science in all its forms. They nevertheless committed genocide against the Jews and other groups, and caused the death of tens of millions.

The Nazis were not less learned than the Allies. They were not less scientific. World War II was not a barbarian invasion. But the Nazis were racists, through and through. Because they lost, we view them as villains. If they had won, you would likely view the Allies as the villains. They would have been plotters to overthrow the legitimate master race, trying in their ignorance to throw the world into savagery and set back civilization a millennium. (I, of course, would not believe that, because I would never have been born with three grandparents killed.)

Your hatred of racism is due to politics, not science. And that's every bit as true for your view of homosexuality ― and for mine. Morality is fundamentally not scientific. It is not caused by science and cannot be justified or attacked by science. It is intrinsically subjective and irrational and can never be otherwise. That is where you really erred in your post.

[Copperknickers II]

First, a little rejoinder to a couple of your main assertations:

Your hatred of racism is due to politics, not science.

I am not 100% sure what you mean by 'politics' in this statement. My hatred of racism is primarily because of personal reasons - I am mixed race and therefore i am naturally offended by racism directed at me or other Asians/Africans. However in addition, my philosophy of evolutionary psychology negates that any member of my species does not favour another member. I suppose i am rather socialist in that i think that everyone has equal rights, which i guess is where you get the political argument from, but this brings me on to my second and point...

You are basing your intolerance of homosexuals, suppression and something that amounts to (and indeed has resulted in) genocide, on a religion. I am not going to try and dissuade you from following something that you obviously believe in so firmly, but i will question your strict adherence to the Dogma.

A dogma is according to wikipedia "a set of rules imposed by an individual [of course in this case our opinions differ on who this individual is, but divine or not someone must have wrote them] that cannot and must not be diverged from or disputed.".

That is, you, in the 21st Century, are basing your morals on a doctrine from a tribal society that was formed over 2000 years ago. I need not remind you of what the morals were like for other peoples, though i will for emphasis mention to the genocide of Christians for entertainment that was commited by 'the most civilised people of their time', the Romans. We have had so many scientific advances since then that any scientific or philosphical statement, not to mention religious dogma, is rendered obsolete. I have no problem in you as a scientist supporting the idea of a God, afterall it is a common idea, but basing morals and laws on a religion?

It seems at least strange to me that almost noone else in the world apart from the Abrahamic religion opposes homosexuality to the point of killing those who commit it, making it therefore merely an isolated predjudice with no basis.

On briefly to the nature of homosexuality:

Most people wish they could commit murder at least once in their life, and murder is certainly widespread in the animal kingdom, but that doesn't legitimize murder. That which is natural need not be right.

That's as may be, but does that give you any right to decide what is right and what is not? Nothing gives you the right to execute Homosexuals in your own country, even in a court. Your opinion is admittedly valid as anyone else's, but given that your 'opinion' is not yours, but an ancient and outdated dogma, you certainly cannot incite intolerance in a western country no matter what your religion says. This is a clear sign that there is a moral wave sweeping the world since Abraham's time, and tradition is that "times must and always do, change my friend".

You cannot have taken any of what you 'believe' to heart if you know half as much as you seem to.

To clarify: As a scientist, unless you completely separate your 'world view' from science, you know that you cannot conclude anything from one source. To remove yourself from your own religion for a minute and look at the bigger picture, you can see that it is not only illogical, but immoral to take sides in something that affects your fellow humans in this way based on... nothing. If you had been born another religion, eg Ancient Greek or Hindu etc, you would not have believed in Judaism or a God, but you would have probably been equally stuborn in your advocation of its beliefs.

Under a legitimate divinely-ordained religious government, homosexuality (like other sin) is punished by humans through a court system. The Bible prescribes a death penalty for sodomy between men, and sentences to this effect may be given by a court.

Those who are reading this could be forgiven for thinking they were reading a particularly Puritan Muslim sect in Iran or the nether regions of Africa, where adulterers and homosexuals are stoned to death and have their heads stuck on poles. But unfortunately there are still people living in the western world who believe in this. The thing to understand here is that God's word must not be taken literally. Granted, many Orthodox Jews think that it should be, but you are plainly not among that number or you would not support evolution or theories of when the earth was created (which it also explicitly states in the Bible, contradictory to science).

You cannot 'pick and choose' what to believe in a religion unless you think that all of 'God's word' written in the Torah is subject to your own personal interpretation, so i do not ask you to abandon your faith, but merely to reevaluate your personal reasons for your morality and how that weighs up in the face of its victims.


I add as an aside a couple of less important things:

It is not exactly hypocritical for you to be homophobic as a Jew, but it is certainly ironic that your ancestors and homosexuals stood side by side in a gas chamber, condemned to death by the same irrationality that affects you. To you, homosexuals are wrong, and to the Nazis, Jews are animals who were worse than homosexuals tenfold.

Ah yes, Godwin's law . Strictly speaking it was you who drew that argument in from the other thread first, therefore i only lose in that thread and you have already lost in this one, but that is just being pedantic

Finally, i offer you a little piece of advice that serves me well in my empathic ablities - Don't knock it 'til you've tried it ;P

[Simetrical]

I am not 100% sure what you mean by 'politics' in this statement.

Replace "politics" by "history" if you prefer. The widespread revulsion toward things like racism and eugenics in Western society today is not based on science. It is based on our cultural values, which were reshaped recently by the political events of the last six or seven decades. If you had been brought up in a Nazi state, however scientifically advanced, you would almost certainly be a racist. (At least if, for the sake of argument, you were considered an Aryan. Clearly if you were the one being oppressed, you wouldn't be likely to agree that you're inferior.) This supports my thesis that science does not give rise to particular moral values. Science doesn't care if we hate or kill each other; it only describes facts.

My hatred of racism is primarily because of personal reasons - I am mixed race and therefore i am naturally offended by racism directed at me or other Asians/Africans.

Surely you're offended by racism directed at other groups as well?

However in addition, my philosophy of evolutionary psychology negates that any member of my species does not favour another member.

I don't understand this statement.

That is, you, in the 21st Century, are basing your morals on a doctrine from a tribal society that was formed over 2000 years ago. I need not remind you of what the morals were like for other peoples, though i will for emphasis mention to the genocide of Christians for entertainment that was commited by 'the most civilised people of their time', the Romans. We have had so many scientific advances since then that any scientific or philosphical statement, not to mention religious dogma, is rendered obsolete. I have no problem in you as a scientist supporting the idea of a God, afterall it is a common idea, but basing morals and laws on a religion?

All of this is a fairly silly objection if you accept the premise that these laws are God-given. It's pretty logical to want to follow laws that are instituted by an omniscient and omnipotent being, regardless of how long ago. If you want to attack the reasonableness of my religious views, you should argue that the Torah doesn't come from God, but was in fact invented by some priests and whatnot a couple of millennia ago. In that case, clearly, it would be silly to follow it now.

It seems at least strange to me that almost noone else in the world apart from the Abrahamic religion opposes homosexuality to the point of killing those who commit it, making it therefore merely an isolated predjudice with no basis.

I think you're probably understating the historical prevalence of intolerance to sodomy. But it doesn't matter. If God gave his Law to the Israelites but not anyone else, then obviously the Israelites are correct even if they're completely alone in their opinions. Again, if you want to call my beliefs irrational, you really have to directly dispute the divinity of Jewish law. If Jewish law is divine, any attacks on it are ridiculous; if it weren't, then I'd fully agree with you, and side arguments like "it's really old" are pointless.

That's as may be, but does that give you any right to decide what is right and what is not? Nothing gives you the right to execute Homosexuals in your own country, even in a court. Your opinion is admittedly valid as anyone else's, but given that your 'opinion' is not yours, but an ancient and outdated dogma, you certainly cannot incite intolerance in a western country no matter what your religion says.

Your reasoning isn't clear here. In fact, even your conclusion isn't clear, so let's start with that. You say I don't have the right to promote intolerance of homosexuals. By that I guess you mean one of the following:

1. Some particular legal system prohibits me from promoting intolerance of homosexuals. I.e., I lack the legal right to be intolerant toward homosexuals, execute them, etc. This seems unlikely, since I already said I'm not typically advocating illegal activities.
2. Some moral principle that I believe in makes it morally wrong for me to promote intolerance of homosexuals. In this case, you're arguing that my moral beliefs are inconsistent, and proposing tolerance toward homosexuals as a resolution to the inconsistency. If this is your point, however, you're going to have to explain clearly what principle this is and why I should care. I don't think I believe in any moral principle that would contradict what I said in my previous post.
3. Some moral principle makes it morally wrong for me to promote intolerance of homosexuals, but I don't believe in that moral principle to begin with. For instance, secular humanism/libertarianism/utilitarianism/etc. may say that it's wrong for me to be intolerant toward homosexuals. But I don't follow these principles, so why should I care?

None of these points seem at all compelling to me without further support.

This is a clear sign that there is a moral wave sweeping the world since Abraham's time, and tradition is that "times must and always do, change my friend".

This seems like an argument that homosexuals will win in the end. That may be the case, but I don't see why that should stop me from opposing homosexuality as long as possible.

To clarify: As a scientist, unless you completely separate your 'world view' from science, you know that you cannot conclude anything from one source. To remove yourself from your own religion for a minute and look at the bigger picture, you can see that it is not only illogical, but immoral to take sides in something that affects your fellow humans in this way based on... nothing. If you had been born another religion, eg Ancient Greek or Hindu etc, you would not have believed in Judaism or a God, but you would have probably been equally stuborn in your advocation of its beliefs.

The short answer to this is that I do indeed separate my world view entirely from science. So do most religious people who are knowledgeable in the sciences, these days. My point is precisely that this is possible: that someone can be as scientifically informed as you like, but still support any moral ideas at all, no matter how strange or reprehensible. In other words, my point is that scientific knowledge does not give rise to a specific moral system, and so morality cannot be determined scientifically.

The thing to understand here is that God's word must not be taken literally. Granted, many Orthodox Jews think that it should be, but you are plainly not among that number or you would not support evolution or theories of when the earth was created (which it also explicitly states in the Bible, contradictory to science).

You cannot 'pick and choose' what to believe in a religion unless you think that all of 'God's word' written in the Torah is subject to your own personal interpretation, so i do not ask you to abandon your faith, but merely to reevaluate your personal reasons for your morality and how that weighs up in the face of its victims.

You are apparently not very familiar with the tenets of Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Jews are not Biblical literalists. They believe the Bible is true, but not necessarily in the simplest or most obvious way. It must be interpreted according to the oral tradition passed down through the rabbis, codified mainly in the Talmud and developed in later rabbinic texts. Only heretical groups like the Samaritans or the Caraites ever believed in principles akin to the Protestants' sola scriptura.

I will further draw a distinction between interpretation of the law and interpretation of narratives. All Orthodox Jews will agree that historical rabbinic interpretation of the laws in the Bible is more or less completely definitive. If the Talmud unambiguously supports a particular legal theory, then that legal theory is correct and cannot generally be dislodged. (I'm brushing over some details, but nothing relevant.) The Talmud, of course, supports the literal interpretation of the ban on sodomy, so any Orthodox Jew must accept that ban.

On the other hand, on non-legal matters, the role of the rabbis is somewhat less clear. Novel reinterpretations of narratives by new generations of rabbis are potentially acceptable (unlike novel reinterpretations of laws, which are almost never acceptable). Many rabbis from the medieval period to the present gave interpretations of Biblical narratives that entirely contradicted all earlier ones (e.g., Maimonides denied the existence of magic). So there's plenty of precedent for things like reinterpretation of the creation story.

In short, I'm not picking and choosing what to believe in. I accept all tenets of Orthodox Judaism, and can justify my beliefs according to the views of many rabbis dating back to antiquity. There are, of course, those who would think I'm a heretic anyway, picking different rabbinic sources to rely on and denying my interpretation of mine, but that's neither here nor there.

Finally, i offer you a little piece of advice that serves me well in my empathetic ablities - Don't knock it 'til you've tried it ;P

So do I take it you'll try out Orthodox Judaism before you condemn it further?

[Copperknickers II]

I am condemning your belief that an omniscient (though clearly not omnipotent) 'God' is the creator of a written source, ie the entire Abrahamic religious field. I have tried being an Abrahamic, i was Christian up until a couple of years ago.

Sorry to cut this thread short, but am i going to get any other answer other than 'God did it so it must be right'?

Because i am getting pretty tired of that over in the Mudpit, i was really hoping to get a reasoned debate rather than you simply quoting your childhood Synagogue teachings at me. Incidently, if said dogma is as open to your own personal interpretation as you say it is, then surely you have some personal reason why despite seeing what hate and following an overlord can do to you (the Nazis), you blatantly ignore the physical effects (12,000,000 people dead, 6,000,000 of them for believing the Torah, and 500,000 of them for being gay) for an unseen magic man in the sky (ok, i know that is a cliche, but it amounts to the same thing, no evidence, omniscient, etc). Hate breeds nothing but more hate, and i don't see God around to protect you.

I know you will give me the same 'i don't care about logic because i have faith instead', but i am asking you once again to take a step back from your religion for a moment and look at its consequences. You must have a personal reason for being Jewish and not liking Homosexuals, so is it really just a coincidence that you were born a Chosen Person and know that they are wrong? Science teaches that you must think for yourself, and when you start looking at things in perspective, you see that everyone has an opinion, and everyone values their own over everyone else's. What makes you right? God?

Think about science - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you hate, you will only be hated back. Science applies to everything, you cannot separate the mechanics of the universe from social interaction or religion, in the end it all works out to be the same thing.

Until you are prepared to read the above and give me an honest answer, then we cannot continue.

[Simetrical]

Sorry to cut this thread short, but am i going to get any other answer other than 'God did it so it must be right'?

I never intended to debate my religious beliefs. I will not change them, and on the other hand I don't expect you to accept or believe them. I will quote my thesis again:

1. Ignorance is not the cause of homophobia. Homophobes need not be ignorant, and ignorant people need not be homophobes. Although most people who oppose homosexuality are ignorant of the issues, most people who support it are too. The latter happen to be somewhat closer to correct on average, but as much by chance as anything.
2. More broadly, morality is essentially independent of both science and logic. Although reasoning can inform morality, it cannot dictate it. Two people who are entirely rational and agree on every empirical question under the Sun may have radically different moral beliefs, and no amount of arguing will bring them to agree.

If you agree with both of those points, then I'm finished. If you disagree with one or both, but only wanted to debate the issue of homosexuality itself and don't care about my thesis, then I guess we're also finished ― but I'd hope you'd be willing to defend the statements of yours that triggered this thread. Otherwise, state your objections to them and we'll continue the debate.

I have not responded to the remainder of your post, because it doesn't address my thesis. I only explained my religious beliefs to make sure you understood my perspective, and I think that's clear enough to you now. To remind you of the opening of my first post here:

I'll begin by giving my personal view on the question of homosexuality. I don't expect to convince anyone of it ― that would entail converting them to my religion, which I'm neither capable enough to do nor inclined to attempt. It serves merely as background for the thesis that follows.

Edit: If you expected this to actually be a debate about homosexuality per se, then sorry for the confusion. Such a debate would be completely pointless ― which is my entire point here, in fact. If you had just said "I completely disagree and think you're an evil person oppressing others because of the obsolete superstitions you've been indoctrinated with", then I wouldn't have offered to debate anything, I'd have just respectfully disagreed. But claiming that homophobia implies ignorance, that I take issue with, and I think we can have an interesting discussion on it (if you don't already admit that I'm right by now).

[Copperknickers II]

I never intended to debate my religious beliefs. I will not change them, and on the other hand I don't expect you to accept or believe them. I will quote my thesis again:

1. Ignorance is not the cause of homophobia. Homophobes need not be ignorant, and ignorant people need not be homophobes. Although most people who oppose homosexuality are ignorant of the issues, most people who support it are too. The latter happen to be somewhat closer to correct on average, but as much by chance as anything.
2. More broadly, morality is essentially independent of both science and logic. Although reasoning can inform morality, it cannot dictate it. Two people who are entirely rational and agree on every empirical question under the Sun may have radically different moral beliefs, and no amount of arguing will bring them to agree.

If you agree with both of those points, then I'm finished. If you disagree with one or both, but only wanted to debate the issue of homosexuality itself and don't care about my thesis, then I guess we're also finished ― but I'd hope you'd be willing to defend the statements of yours that triggered this thread. Otherwise, state your objections to them and we'll continue the debate.

I have not responded to the remainder of your post, because it doesn't address my thesis. I only explained my religious beliefs to make sure you understood my perspective, and I think that's clear enough to you now. To remind you of the opening of my first post here:

I'll begin by giving my personal view on the question of homosexuality. I don't expect to convince anyone of it ― that would entail converting them to my religion, which I'm neither capable enough to do nor inclined to attempt. It serves merely as background for the thesis that follows.

Edit: If you expected this to actually be a debate about homosexuality per se, then sorry for the confusion. Such a debate would be completely pointless ― which is my entire point here, in fact. If you had just said "I completely disagree and think you're an evil person oppressing others because of the obsolete superstitions you've been indoctrinated with", then I wouldn't have offered to debate anything, I'd have just respectfully disagreed. But claiming that homophobia implies ignorance, that I take issue with, and I think we can have an interesting discussion on it (if you don't already admit that I'm right by now).

Very well. I, a humanist, do not intend to debate with an Orthodox jew about morals, as you say that would be pointless. Now to start the debate again, and i apologise for the misunderstanding:

1.Ignorance is not the cause of homophobia. Homophobes need not be ignorant, and ignorant people need not be homophobes. Although most people who oppose homosexuality are ignorant of the issues, most people who support it are too. The latter happen to be somewhat closer to correct on average, but as much by chance as anything.

Ignorance is certainly a cause of homophobia, someone without knowledge of homosexuality would be more than a little intimidated by someone of their own sex trying to flirt with them etc. As a general rule, homophobia is learned from somewhere, and in your case i cannot say that ignorance is the cause.

The next part i am not so sure about. Most people who support homosexuality are either homosexual/bisexual themselves, or egalitarians such as myself who have no problem with what other people get up to in their bedrooms. The latter certainly implies more than a dogma imposed since birth, at the very least a concious personal moral decision that homosexuality is acceptable. I am not sure about the numbers, but i think it is likely that those who support homosexuality for this reason are in general more aware of the issues than those who oppose it because they have learned to oppose it.

As such, homophobia, is still not an entirely natural feeling and the fact that reasoned morality (as opposed to dogma or learned morality), on the whole finds nothing wrong with homosexuality is certainly something i would like your comment on.

2. More broadly, morality is essentially independent of both science and logic. Although reasoning can inform morality, it cannot dictate it. Two people who are entirely rational and agree on every empirical question under the Sun may have radically different moral beliefs, and no amount of arguing will bring them to agree.

This is certainly not the way i look at it. I mentioned two types of morality above, Reasoned and Learned. Morality is an innate quality in most human beings, and of course almost all of it at the start is Learned, from a religion or simply from parents and peers.

However, science, specifically for the purposes of this argument evolutionary psychology and Humanism, looks at reasons for morality, and what is truly moral and ethical. Both come up with slightly different answers, though both are empirically and objectively Reasoned.

In Humanism, morality works on the predication of harm, where harm/suffering = evil/immoral. This can be drawn as a predication from most any moral system in the world, from the ten commandments to the Quran to the Sutras. Harm to anything, therefore, is immoral, for any reason, unless for the greater good (ie preventing even more harm).

In evolutioary psychology and social biology, the individual organism has a drive to stay alive, and to reproduce (granted not all do, and i am not saying those that don't are immoral: bear with me). Evolution - descent with modification - is partnered with adaption. The part of this that concerns us most is sexual selection, the system by which a mate chooses another mate who they feel would make the best genetic partner to further their genes. This is an observation, notice, not a dogma on what should happen. One theory states that altruism, and similarly morality, is a product of sexual selection. It is objectively observed that a human will often choose to mate with another who is kind; this is a good sign that they will be a good and faithful parent/partner. As such, humans have evolved to be altruistic in certain circumstances. The theory continues that morality is a continuation of this, where the human is kind not only to his own genes and partner, but to everyone around them.

Such natural observations, although of course debateable and not even nearly fully developed for the sake of the time it would take to do so, prove that morality can be not merely a personal preference, but a nonpartisan informed decision based on reasoned scrutiny.

[Simetrical]

Ignorance is certainly a cause of homophobia, someone without knowledge of homosexuality would be more than a little intimidated by someone of their own sex trying to flirt with them etc.

How is that associated with ignorance? Unease (toward anything) is either a learned response, or innate. It doesn't normally go away if you become more informed, only if you become more used to the discomforting phenomenon.

As a general rule, homophobia is learned from somewhere, and in your case i cannot say that ignorance is the cause.

Yes, in most cases homophobia is a cultural belief that's explicitly taught.

The next part i am not so sure about. Most people who support homosexuality are either homosexual/bisexual themselves, or egalitarians such as myself who have no problem with what other people get up to in their bedrooms. The latter certainly implies more than a dogma imposed since birth, at the very least a concious personal moral decision that homosexuality is acceptable.

Really? Do most people who are okay with homosexuality think that because of a decision they made on a purely rational basis, without any cultural context? Surely not. There's a homosexuality movement, a social and political push to gain rights for homosexuals. Many children today are taught that homosexuality is okay, no different from how their grandparents were taught the opposite. In many circles, anyone who admits to dislike of homosexuality will be treated as an evil bigot ― as you tried to treat me in the Athenaeum thread.

These are all strong cultural pressures toward permitting homosexuality, probably just as strong in some cases as opposite pressures in typical religious circles. (Although obviously not as strong as the anti-homosexual pressures in places where homosexuality is actually illegal.) I see no greater rationality here, just different opinions.

This is anecdotal, but tell me: what were you taught about homosexuality? What did your parents and schoolteachers tell you? What are the dominant opinions among your peers, past and present? I'm guessing you didn't just decide after personal deliberation that homosexuality is fine. I'm guessing that most everyone you know and respect thinks homosexuality is fine.

I am not sure about the numbers, but i think it is likely that those who support homosexuality for this reason are in general more aware of the issues than those who oppose it because they have learned to oppose it.

Those who support homosexuality also mostly do so because they've learned to support it. Not many people are really given both sides of the issue growing up (although I'm sure some are).

This is certainly not the way i look at it. I mentioned two types of morality above, Reasoned and Learned. Morality is an innate quality in most human beings, and of course almost all of it at the start is Learned, from a religion or simply from parents and peers.

However, science, specifically for the purposes of this argument evolutionary psychology and Humanism, looks at reasons for morality, and what is truly moral and ethical. Both come up with slightly different answers, though both are empirically and objectively Reasoned.

I disagree with this characterization of morality. You cast "Reasoned" morality as superior to "Learned" ― but they're largely indistinguishable. The idea that secular humanism is more "reasoned" than other ideologies is just a standard justification by a group for why it's more right than everyone else, not really much different from groups that claim divine inspiration or the leadership of exceptionally wise people or whatever.

Most people believe what they're taught. People who are brought up as secular humanists will usually believe in secular humanism. People who are brought up religious will usually believe in their religion.

Some people won't believe what they're taught. Some people who are brought up religious will become secular humanists, and these people will often justify the change as having seen that religion is illogical. But by the exact same token, some people who are brought up as secular humanists will become religious, and these people will often justify the change as having discovered facts that they weren't previously aware of.

There's no fundamental objective difference ― each group sees itself as correct, and each presents different arguments as to why it's correct. Each group thinks its arguments are unassailable and scarcely need more justification than to merely state them, but that the other group's arguments are ignorant or deluded.

So I'm going to have to say that if you want to claim that your morals are better than religious people's, you're going to have to provide solid justification, not just claim it on a vague basis like "well, my morals are reasoned, not dogmatic". (Which you haven't even proved.)

In Humanism, morality works on the predication of harm, where harm/suffering = evil/immoral. This can be drawn as a predication from most any moral system in the world, from the ten commandments to the Quran to the Sutras. Harm to anything, therefore, is immoral, for any reason, unless for the greater good (ie preventing even more harm).

Sure, this is what humanists (particularly utilitarians) believe. Were you going somewhere with this? I'm not clear on what this has to do with what you said before or after it.

In evolutioary psychology and social biology, the individual organism has a drive to stay alive, and to reproduce (granted not all do, and i am not saying those that don't are immoral: bear with me). Evolution - descent with modification - is partnered with adaption. The part of this that concerns us most is sexual selection, the system by which a mate chooses another mate who they feel would make the best genetic partner to further their genes. This is an observation, notice, not a dogma on what should happen. One theory states that altruism, and similarly morality, is a product of sexual selection. It is objectively observed that a human will often choose to mate with another who is kind; this is a good sign that they will be a good and faithful parent/partner. As such, humans have evolved to be altruistic in certain circumstances. The theory continues that morality is a continuation of this, where the human is kind not only to his own genes and partner, but to everyone around them.

Such natural observations, although of course debateable and not even nearly fully developed for the sake of the time it would take to do so, prove that morality can be not merely a personal preference, but a nonpartisan informed decision based on reasoned scrutiny.

It is certainly true that science has shed some light on the emergence of morality and altruism. (A better explanation is kin selection, as far as I know, rather than sexual selection ― but that's neither here nor there.) But I don't see how this supports your version of morality any more than mine. Could you elaborate on what empirical facts such as these have to do with moral imperatives?

[Copperknickers II]

Unease (toward anything) is either a learned response, or innate. It doesn't normally go away if you become more informed, only if you become more used to the discomforting phenomenon.

But fear is the uncertainty of the unknown. Without knowledge of homosexuality, such a thing can be intimidating. Ignorance can mean a lack of experience as well as knowledge.

Do most people who are okay with homosexuality think that because of a decision they made on a purely rational basis, without any cultural context? Surely not. There's a homosexuality movement, a social and political push to gain rights for homosexuals. Many children today are taught that homosexuality is okay, no different from how their grandparents were taught the opposite. In many circles, anyone who admits to dislike of homosexuality will be treated as an evil bigot ― as you tried to treat me in the Athenaeum thread.

These are all strong cultural pressures toward permitting homosexuality, probably just as strong in some cases as opposite pressures in typical religious circles. (Although obviously not as strong as the anti-homosexual pressures in places where homosexuality is actually illegal.) I see no greater rationality here, just different opinions.

True, though not only is your personal opinion in a bit of a minority in the western world, but surely you agree that, as a generic statement, an educated and reasoned opinion carries more weight than a taught and dogmatic one? In general, you can hardly refute that.

This is anecdotal, but tell me: what were you taught about homosexuality? What did your parents and schoolteachers tell you? What are the dominant opinions among your peers, past and present? I'm guessing you didn't just decide after personal deliberation that homosexuality is fine. I'm guessing that most everyone you know and respect thinks homosexuality is fine.

Those who support homosexuality also mostly do so because they've learned to support it. Not many people are really given both sides of the issue growing up (although I'm sure some are).

We are of course taught not to openly abuse anyone for any reason. Never have i been told by any teacher 'homosexuality is right, and anyone who disagrees is evil', nor in fact do i entirely believe that.

I have a couple of homosexual friends, and have been used to the idea for most of my life, but contrary to your assumption those among my peers, and in fact throughout my country who have not had such experiences, are highly bigoted against homosexuals. I would definitely not say that 'all of my peers think homosexuality is acceptable and fine', quite the opposite. Interestingly enough, i find that among my peers in school there is an almost direct correllation between academic achievement and tolerance, both increasing as the other increases. Even so, the general opinion is that homosexuals are not 'normal' (not that this is ever expressed openly) and the thought of male on male penetration is nauseous to most people i know (jokes and sport aside.)

My opinion of the issue is almost entirely personal experience of prejudice being a hurtful and unjustified practice, and reasearch on morals from a Humanistic point of view.

I disagree with this characterization of morality. You cast "Reasoned" morality as superior to "Learned"

I do no such thing, i am merely suggesting a division of the roots of morality. Though as i said, weighted opinion is usually more liable to be correct than learned, in an argument more black and white than this.

The idea that secular humanism is more "reasoned" than other ideologies is just a standard justification by a group for why it's more right than everyone else.

A little biased, no? I do not claim to be right, i merely hold the opinion that i am right. With no arbiter in this argument to tell us whom is right, and given that we have agreed that we are not actually trying to convince the other that either of us is right, all i can do is justify why i think i am right.

Most people believe what they're taught. People who are brought up as secular humanists will usually believe in secular humanism. People who are brought up religious will usually believe in their religion.

Usually maybe, but not in my case. I am as much an exception to your rules as you are to mine: i used to be a pious Christian until a couple of years ago remmeber. In fact, I make a point of believing nothing that i learn: it is my duty as a student to remember what i am told and to form my own opinions on the subject. Imo, if we took everything we are told as Gospel truth, we would never have progressed from thinking Gospel is the truth.

Some people won't believe what they're taught. Some people who are brought up religious will become secular humanists, and these people will often justify the change as having seen that religion is illogical. But by the exact same token, some people who are brought up as secular humanists will become religious, and these people will often justify the change as having discovered facts that they weren't previously aware of.

Quite so, and i respect both of these hugely, even if i believe the latter is wrong. Maybe i am wrong and you are right, but until i have proof that pleases me sufficiently i will stay this side of the line.

There's no fundamental objective difference ― each group sees itself as correct, and each presents different arguments as to why it's correct. Each group thinks its arguments are unassailable and scarcely need more justification than to merely state them, but that the other group's arguments are ignorant or deluded.

No self-respecting scientist'thinks that his arguments are unassailable, as you well know.

So I'm going to have to say that if you want to claim that your morals are better than religious people's, you're going to have to provide solid justification, not just claim it on a vague basis like "well, my morals are reasoned, not dogmatic".

Why? I am not trying to convince you my morals are better, merely that my morals are my own and not someone else's, and consequently i am able to look at things in circumspect better than perhaps you are.

It is certainly true that science has shed some light on the emergence of morality and altruism. (A better explanation is kin selection, as far as I know, rather than sexual selection ― but that's neither here nor there.) But I don't see how this supports your version of morality any more than mine. Could you elaborate on what empirical facts such as these have to do with moral imperatives?

You stated

"Although reasoning can inform morality, it cannot dictate it."

I am disagreeing by giving my own beleifs as an example of the converse, that reasoning can and does dictate my morality.

[Simetrical]

But fear is the uncertainty of the unknown.

A poor definition. The condemned man being walked to the chopping block knows his fate exactly, and is afraid regardless. But it's not really relevant, so I'll leave it at that.

True, though not only is your personal opinion in a bit of a minority in the western world, but surely you agree that, as a generic statement, an educated and reasoned opinion carries more weight than a taught and dogmatic one? In general, you can hardly refute that.

It depends wholly on the sources of the opinions. When I am taught in my quantum mechanics class that the product of the standard deviations of two dynamical variables must be greater than or equal to half the magnitude of the expected value of their commutator, I don't accept it because it's educated and reasoned. I accept it because I feel I have reason to trust the source. If someone who I knew had no background in physics claimed the same thing, I'd be much less inclined to believe it, even if the same exact justification was provided. Is this unreasonable?

I have a couple of homosexual friends, and have been used to the idea for most of my life, but contrary to your assumption those among my peers, and in fact throughout my country who have not had such experiences, are highly bigoted against homosexuals. I would definitely not say that 'all of my peers think homosexuality is acceptable and fine', quite the opposite.

Well, so much for personal examples. I didn't realize you were raised Christian. But you must agree, anyway, that logic would almost certainly not have led you to these conclusions if you had been born in, say, 1850. Or in Saudi Arabia today, even with a top-notch scientific education and a lot of exposure to Western ideas. If it's really only logic that leads you to your conclusions, and not upbringing, why would upbringing affect your conclusions?

A little biased, no? I do not claim to be right, i merely hold the opinion that i am right. With no arbiter in this argument to tell us whom is right, and given that we have agreed that we are not actually trying to convince the other that either of us is right, all i can do is justify why i think i am right.

Very well; fair enough.

Why? I am not trying to convince you my morals are better, merely that my morals are my own and not someone else's, and consequently i am able to look at things in circumspect better than perhaps you are.

So you don't consider your morals are better? Then I don't think we disagree as much as I thought, in the subject of the debate. (Obviously we disagree quite strongly as far as homosexuality itself.)

You stated

"Although reasoning can inform morality, it cannot dictate it."

I am disagreeing by giving my own beleifs as an example of the converse, that reasoning can and does dictate my morality.

But you haven't shown that your beliefs are actually based on reasoning. They're different from those you were taught, but so are those of many religious people. In what way are your beliefs more based on science and logic than mine?

Reasoning doesn't really stand opposed to dogma in the first place. Most rabbis probably have done a lot more moral reasoning than you or I ever have. The opposite of dogma is invention and novelty, or perhaps questioning ― not reasoning. You can reason logically from any (non-contradictory) set of premises, whether received or invented.

At most, dogma is opposed to science, not reasoning. Science requires that everything be falsifiable (and therefore open to question). But no system of morality meets this standard. Basic moral principles are not falsifiable. I guess your basic moral principle is something like utilitarianism: that pleasure should be maximized and pain minimized, and nothing else taken into account. What could possibly falsify that idea? (Or if that's not your basic moral principle, give me some more insight into what is, please.)

[Copperknickers II]

A poor definition. The condemned man being walked to the chopping block knows his fate exactly, and is afraid regardless.

He is afraid of death, and what awaits him in the afterlife. Anyway, that is not my words, it is merely an old adage that i am sure you know, and is not really my opinion.

It depends wholly on the sources of the opinions. When I am taught in my quantum mechanics class that the product of the standard deviations of two dynamical variables must be greater than or equal to half the magnitude of the expected value of their commutator, I don't accept it because it's educated and reasoned. I accept it because I feel I have reason to trust the source. If someone who I knew had no background in physics claimed the same thing, I'd be much less inclined to believe it, even if the same exact justification was provided. Is this unreasonable?

Yes! It is nothing short of dangerous to take people's word for things with no proof. Appearances an be deceptive, empirical proof cannot. As an aside, I am more than a little worried by your concept of education. As a student in any field, it is your duty to remember teachings and form your own opinions on them, not to believe them blindly.

Well, so much for personal examples. I didn't realize you were raised Christian. But you must agree, anyway, that logic would almost certainly not have led you to these conclusions if you had been born in, say, 1850. Or in Saudi Arabia today, even with a top-notch scientific education and a lot of exposure to Western ideas. If it's really only logic that leads you to your conclusions, and not upbringing, why would upbringing affect your conclusions?

That is an interesting point, though there are many examples of, eg, African tribal traditions being abolished after they were educated in simple science and modern/historical studies. Afterall, if environment dictated morals, we would never have progressed beyond animism and human sacrifice (some would say we still haven't, but that is another argument). I wouldn't say my upbringing has affected my morals, tbh, apart from giving me the freedom to form my own opinion.

So you don't consider your morals are better? Then I don't think we disagree as much as I thought, in the subject of the debate. (Obviously we disagree quite strongly as far as homosexuality itself.)

I consider that my own morals are more valuable as they are reasoned. Maybe they aren't better, but until i have a reason to believe, for example, that homosexuality is wrong...

In what way are your beliefs more based on science and logic than mine?

Um, not sure if i understand this correctly... they are more based on science and logic in that they are based on science and logic, as opposed to a book.

Reasoning doesn't really stand opposed to dogma in the first place. Most rabbis probably have done a lot more moral reasoning than you or I ever have. The opposite of dogma is invention and novelty, or perhaps questioning ― not reasoning. You can reason logically from any (non-contradictory) set of premises, whether received or invented.

Have you done any reasoning at all on your beliefs? I am still working on novelties, but the point is i am not clinging to dogma like you. It is all very well using your religion as a starting premise, but you have admitted that you follow your belief unquestioningly.

Science requires that everything be falsifiable (and therefore open to question). But no system of morality meets this standard. Basic moral principles are not falsifiable. I guess your basic moral principle is something like utilitarianism: that pleasure should be maximized and pain minimized, and nothing else taken into account. What could possibly falsify that idea? (Or if that's not your basic moral principle, give me some more insight into what is, please.)

My morals cannot be falsified in the same way that evolution cannot be falsified. Technically it can, but who would?

[Simetrical]

Sorry for the delayed response.

Yes! It is nothing short of dangerous to take people's word for things with no proof. Appearances an be deceptive, empirical proof cannot. As an aside, I am more than a little worried by your concept of education. As a student in any field, it is your duty to remember teachings and form your own opinions on them, not to believe them blindly.

So if a professor of quantum physics tells you something about quantum mechanics, and a high school dropout tells you something different, you will give exactly equal weight to their opinions? You acknowledge no source of authority at all beyond direct observation? Why do you believe Antarctica exists, given that you've never been there? Isn't that "blind faith" in what all the cartographers say?

That is an interesting point, though there are many examples of, eg, African tribal traditions being abolished after they were educated in simple science and modern/historical studies.

I think it's much more likely that they were abolished after the Christians who came with their technology told them that they were primitive and stupid, based on their own beliefs. Not because they saw them to be wrong. Most early Western contact with African tribes involved missionaries strenuously trying to get them to adopt more Christian customs and beliefs. That's a historical point that doesn't really matter here, though.

Afterall, if environment dictated morals, we would never have progressed beyond animism and human sacrifice (some would say we still haven't, but that is another argument).

I never claimed that environment does dictate morals, only that personal reasoning does not. Both are major factors. Religious and political beliefs are strongly correlated with those of one's parents. Ergo, upbringing affects morals.

Um, not sure if i understand this correctly... they are more based on science and logic in that they are based on science and logic, as opposed to a book.

Again: in what way are they based on science and logic? You keep on stating this, but I don't think you've yet explained how science or logic actually caused you to form your opinions. You've just stated that they have.

So take homosexuality. What train of thought, starting from first principles, led you to believe that it's okay? Please be as detailed as possible. Feel free to point out where science and logic enter the picture. I'll point out where they're missing, the points in your logic that are based on mere opinion.

Have you done any reasoning at all on your beliefs?

Of course. Orthodox Judaism is all about reasoning about beliefs. I can guarantee you that all the most pious people I know have spent far more time reasoning about Jewish law than you have about morality. Some of them spend their entire day doing it.

What I think you perhaps meant to ask is whether I've done any reasoning at all about my fundamental beliefs, like "God exists and the Torah is his law". But in response to that, let me ask you whether you've done any reasoning about your fundamental beliefs. I assume you believe that it's good for people to be happy, and bad to harm them. Why? Why not be a nihilist and decide it's okay to do whatever you feel like to anyone, for instance?

I am still working on novelties, but the point is i am not clinging to dogma like you.

I say you are. "Everyone should be nice to others" is no less a dogma than "God exists". "Being nice to others carries practical benefits and helps social cohesion" is not a dogma, of course ― but that's not all you believe, is it? You believe in being nice to others even if no one else will ever know, right? Why?

My morals cannot be falsified in the same way that evolution cannot be falsified.

I think you misunderstand the idea of falsification. Evolution can absolutely be falsified in principle. For instance, it might hypothetically emerge that most of the fossil record was placed there by an alien race, or made up by paleontologists in a giant conspiracy. That is possible. It is conceivable.

Is it likely? Absolutely not. It's incredibly unlikely. That's why evolution is an established scientific theory: it's almost certainly true. But it is a scientific theory because it does make concrete statements about the physical world. It cannot just be adapted to any new facts that happen to come along. There are some possible universes in which it would be demonstrably false. That is what makes it a description of reality: that it rules out some possible observations. Because evolution is true, we know that we will not find that the fossil record was just made up. The theory makes predictions about what we will observe.

Compare to, say, belief in God. Can you conceive of any event that would falsify my belief that God is the creator of the universe? Even in theory. If you could cause absolutely any possible thing to happen in the physical universe, what can you think of that would somehow disprove God as creator of the universe? Nothing. The claim makes no statements about anything observable. It is not a statement that has any empirical meaning whatsoever.

Now how about your morals? What possible observations do they say are impossible? What empirical, scientific meaning do they have?

[Copperknickers II]

Sorry for the delayed response.

Accepted. I was worried you had given me up as a lost cause

So if a professor of quantum physics tells you something about quantum mechanics, and a high school dropout tells you something different, you will give exactly equal weight to their opinions? You acknowledge no source of authority at all beyond direct observation? Why do you believe Antarctica exists, given that you've never been there? Isn't that "blind faith" in what all the cartographers say?

I choose what to believe. If i see a satellite picture of the world then i can be reasonably certain that antarctica exists. But what i am trying to say is that the purpose of education, and indeed the very action of expressing one's opinions, is to influence someone, not to order someone. It is misunderstanding the purpose of information/advice to believe something 'blindly', that is 'without thinking at it from the alternative point of view and weighing it up'. There is an old Indian fable about this that i cannot find on the internet, and will not copy out - the basic moral is: 'you must always weigh up advice and not follow it blindly'.

Religious and political beliefs are strongly correlated with those of one's parents. Ergo, upbringing affects morals.

Again: generalities. Uprbringing advises morals, but it is probably one of the least affected attributes affected by upbringing.

in what way are they based on science and logic? You keep on stating this, but I don't think you've yet explained how science or logic actually caused you to form your opinions. You've just stated that they have.

So take homosexuality. What train of thought, starting from first principles, led you to believe that it's okay? Please be as detailed as possible. Feel free to point out where science and logic enter the picture. I'll point out where they're missing, the points in your logic that are based on mere opinion.

I see no problem with it. My starting and finishing point in the train of thought is that, regardless of what i have been taught and influenced by, consensual homosexuality is inconsequential and produces no negative effects to me or anyone else, therefore even if i had the right to oppose it, there is nothing to oppose.

I assert the following:

All consensual sexual acts are morally unquestionable.
Consensual homosexuality is a consensual sexual act
Therefore homosexuality is morally unquestionable

Go ahead, point out what you need explained from that argument.

Orthodox Judaism is all about reasoning about beliefs. I can guarantee you that all the most pious people I know have spent far more time reasoning about Jewish law than you have about morality. Some of them spend their entire day doing it.

Reasoning means nothing if it is not done by the accepted parameters of logic, rationality and empirical evidence.

"Everyone should be nice to others" is no less a dogma than "God exists". "Being nice to others carries practical benefits and helps social cohesion" is not a dogma, of course ― but that's not all you believe, is it? You believe in being nice to others even if no one else will ever know, right? Why?

Touché. If i am honest, i am not entirely sure about the latter. I suppose it is because i have a severely enhanced sense of empathy that would cause me to physically explode from guilt if i ever made a concious decision not to be nice to somebody, and therefore apply that to everyone else. Call me naive, if you will, but it is the truth - i cannot willingly commit an act of harm, i am not capable of it, and therefore i find it hard to see why others should not follow that either.

I think you misunderstand the idea of falsification. Evolution can absolutely be falsified in principle. For instance, it might hypothetically emerge that most of the fossil record was placed there by an alien race, or made up by paleontologists in a giant conspiracy. That is possible. It is conceivable.

It could be falsified. Can is a different thing altogether. I do hate English, how can one argue in abstract without the subjunctive?

Compare to, say, belief in God. Can you conceive of any event that would falsify my belief that God is the creator of the universe? Even in theory. If you could cause absolutely any possible thing to happen in the physical universe, what can you think of that would somehow disprove God as creator of the universe?

It is conceivable that in his omnipotence, he bestowed his gift of omniscience to someone/everyone. Therefore we would know he existed.

Now how about your morals? What possible observations do they say are impossible? What empirical, scientific meaning do they have?

If, for example, i were to find out that i was the only person in the universe who experienced pain, emotion, uncomfortableness, etc, then i would quickly become a nihilist psychopath murderer. Does that answer your question?

[Simetrical]

Accepted. I was worried you had given me up as a lost cause

No, I just tend to get weary of this sort of debate and put off answering for days. It's part of why I don't engage in them more often.

I choose what to believe. If i see a satellite picture of the world then i can be reasonably certain that antarctica exists. But what i am trying to say is that the purpose of education, and indeed the very action of expressing one's opinions, is to influence someone, not to order someone. It is misunderstanding the purpose of information/advice to believe something 'blindly', that is 'without thinking at it from the alternative point of view and weighing it up'. There is an old Indian fable about this that i cannot find on the internet, and will not copy out - the basic moral is: 'you must always weigh up advice and not follow it blindly'.

Oh, certainly that's true ideally, but practically it just doesn't work. The overwhelming majority of knowledge that you have comes from authorities you trust. Now, you'd be skeptical of it to the extent of checking it for any gross inconsistencies with what other sources say, or insofar as you might have reason to doubt the source (based on things that source has said that you've found to be false, say). But if you look something up in an atlas, let's say, you will accept what it says as being very likely true without personally checking it, because you trust the source and checking it is impractical. (How long would it take you to personally determine the surface area of Kenya?)

In short, whatever you may claim, you do put a considerable amount of trust in what authorities say, without personally checking it. You decide how much to trust the authority, and then give their statements credence based on that trust. "It is nothing short of dangerous to take people's word for things with no proof" is just not a tenable claim at all. Why do you believe that I'm an Orthodox Jew? You have no way to confirm it. Have you seen me attend a synagogue or avoid eating non-kosher food? You believe only because I say it, and on this issue you accord my word a high degree of authority even if I can't provide proof.

Again: generalities. Uprbringing advises morals, but it is probably one of the least affected attributes affected by upbringing.

What attributes do you think are affected more? What attributes do you think are affected less?

I see no problem with it. My starting and finishing point in the train of thought is that, regardless of what i have been taught and influenced by, consensual homosexuality is inconsequential and produces no negative effects to me or anyone else, therefore even if i had the right to oppose it, there is nothing to oppose.

I assert the following:

All consensual sexual acts are morally unquestionable.
Consensual homosexuality is a consensual sexual act
Therefore homosexuality is morally unquestionable

Go ahead, point out what you need explained from that argument.

What's your reasoning for "All consensual sexual acts are morally unquestionable"? It seems like your reasoning is closer to:

Acts that don't significantly affect any unwilling participants are not immoral.
Consensual homosexual intercourse doesn't significantly affect any unwilling participant.
Consensual homosexual intercourse is not immoral.

If this is a correct summary of your reasoning, please explain why you believe that "Acts that don't significantly affect any unwilling participants are not immoral" (or similar). Why can't there be an immoral act that's victimless?

Recall that my claim is that there is no purely logical or empirical basis for any moral statement. I will therefore repeatedly ask you for your justification for each statement, and I claim that at some point you must either reach a moral principle that you can provide no justification for, or you must invoke circular reasoning.

It would speed things up if, rather than waiting for me to respond again, you just assumed that I had asked "So why do you believe that?", ad infinitum. See how many steps you can get to before you get to something that you have to insist is self-justifying somehow, or which you cannot justify.

Perhaps I'm not explaining so well. As an example, a chain of moral reasoning on my part would go something like this:

Anything the Talmud prohibits is wrong.
The Talmud prohibits homosexuality.
Homosexuality is wrong.

The statement "Anything the Talmud prohibits is wrong" I do not justify. I believe it without justification. Is this irrational? No, I don't think so. Why not? Because it's inevitable, as a matter of pure logic.

Consider a finite set of beliefs, with each belief possibly implying one or more other beliefs. Draw each belief as a little circle, and have arrows indicate implication. To find the justification for a belief, you go backwards along any arrows pointing to it. To find what a belief implies, you follow the arrows forward. So your syllogism above would have three beliefs:

1) Acts that don't significantly affect any unwilling participants are not immoral.
2) Consensual homosexual intercourse doesn't significantly affect any unwilling participant.
3) Consensual homosexual intercourse is not immoral.

1 and 2 would each have an arrow going to 3, to show that they imply it. Any system of logically connected beliefs could logically be drawn as a graph like this. Follow so far?

But there are two possibilities for your graph. Either there has to be a loop somewhere, with a belief that ultimately is used to justify itself (circular reasoning); or some belief on the graph must have no incoming arrows (and is therefore unjustified). Put mathematically, a finite directed graph must either contain a cycle or have a vertex with no predecessors. If you don't believe me, try drawing these diagrams yourself: you'll find that you can never end up with any situation other than one of the previous two. A mathematical proof is possible, of course.

This is a graphical illustration of part of my thesis. Moral beliefs cannot come out of pure logic. Some of them must be assumed to be self-justifying, or not in need of justification. By construction, these beliefs cannot be justified on the basis of other beliefs. They are fundamental, axiomatic to your belief system. You have to believe them just because you think they're right, and for no other reason.

A belief similar to "everyone can do what they like as long as they don't hurt others" is probably axiomatic to you. I disagree with it, but since it doesn't logically follow from any of your other beliefs, what logical arguments could I devise to oppose it? Only emotional arguments are possible.

Touché. If i am honest, i am not entirely sure about the latter. I suppose it is because i have a severely enhanced sense of empathy that would cause me to physically explode from guilt if i ever made a concious decision not to be nice to somebody, and therefore apply that to everyone else. Call me naive, if you will, but it is the truth - i cannot willingly commit an act of harm, i am not capable of it, and therefore i find it hard to see why others should not follow that either.

But you agree that this is not, in fact, a logical justification for your belief, right? It's essentially a personal, emotional argument. So you have no logical argument to support this belief?

It could be falsified. Can is a different thing altogether. I do hate English, how can one argue in abstract without the subjunctive?

I don't agree with your grammatical analysis, but I think you know what I meant.

It is conceivable that in his omnipotence, he bestowed his gift of omniscience to someone/everyone. Therefore we would know he existed.

It's verifiable. It's not falsifiable. There are conceivable events (e.g., the coming of the Messiah) that would provide strong evidence that a particular religion is right, and atheism is wrong. But there are no conceivable events that would prove that atheism is right, and God really doesn't exist. So belief in God is not a scientific belief.

If, for example, i were to find out that i was the only person in the universe who experienced pain, emotion, uncomfortableness, etc, then i would quickly become a nihilist psychopath murderer. Does that answer your question?

No. That doesn't show that your morality is wrong, it just changes its application. In other words, if you found out that everyone else was a robot, you might have no problem with killing them. But you'd still believe killing real humans was wrong, should you happen upon any. What evidence would logically falsify your belief that gratuitously killing a real human, someone just like you, is wrong?

[Copperknickers II]

You have ensnared me in my own argument. In truth, logic is almost as bad as religion for assuming things that cannot be physically proven, but this is a contest of skill, not of missionary ability, so that does not matter. I never entered this debate expecting to win. In fact i entered it with the metaphorical 'do-gi', the ancient clothing of the Samurai that symbolised their loyalty - the clothing served not only as clothing in life but as a covering for the body of a slain warrior when he was buried, symbolising that the warrior went into battle ready for defeat, so his honour was not diminished by the sins of pride and overconfidence.

I was guilty of the latter until your revelation mentioned in the first post: i had thought that scientific logic was undefeatable against creationism and dogma. Well, in my case that is not true, and i have been bested. I will stick to my beliefs, but in this instance at least, i concede defeat. You have been a far worthier opponent than i could have imagined, and i have enjoyed my first Fight Club debate, but all things must come to an end.