This title is an incisive quote from our regular responder, Karl K. My personal and immediate response to this statement is, “Duh”. Naturalism, or the acceptance of the results and conclusions from the application of the Scientific Method, has created huge advances in the survival and comfort of all humanity. In the couple of centuries since the Enlightenment, more progress has been made toward that goal than in the previous 50 centuries under theistic ruling philosophies. There is great utility for society as a whole in following naturalistic views.
However, then Karl proceeds with the following non-sequitur:
Can I therefore assume that you would concede the point that if somebody has to die to solve some of the world’s problems it should be people like ERIK who preach religious dogma in a manner that offends you. In fact this would apply to anyone who says interpretive science needs to be knocked out of its prominent position in our secular society be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, […]
Actually, evolutionary theories (one subset of naturalistic conclusions) prove that variety (a wide bell curve in every characteristic) is necessary to the long term survival of societies, as well as species. Only people with narrow world views advocate eliminating non-aggressive adversaries. Genocide is practiced by theists, not naturalists. Usually by theists of the newly-formed personality-cult sort as with Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. These cult leaders claim to be scientific to the world, yet the first thing they do is purge actual scientists and intellectuals, leaving a core of pseudo-scientific yes men to lead their institutions. They all refuted Darwin. Look how well that worked out for them.
It is a scientific necessity to keep around those who disagree, if only because they might be right despite all evidence currently available. Even if there is no God, maybe the belief itself has social utility. The basis of the scientific method still is adversarial in nature. Advances come when someone disproves currently accepted theories. But solidly disproved ideas that keep appearing as new insights by those who refuse to peruse the news of the views they refuse are not helpful.
The problem with the term “Utilitarian” is that it means different things to different people. To the Saved-by-Jesus crowd, it appears to mean selfish and without regard to society. It seems that many of the Faithful were raised with the odd idea that morality comes from carefully following ancient rules, rather than understanding the effects of ones own actions as a part of living society and its future. To rational atheists like myself, the morality of Utility is implicit. If an action provides for the greater good, then it is useful, has utility. If it also gains something for myself, then great! See Utilitarianism.
The growth of Utilitarian philosophy around the time our nation was founded led to things like our Bill of Rights. Read about Jeremy Bentham and James Mill and their Utilitarian ilk.
Science is not dominant because those in politically and socially powerful positions say so. It is dominant because those who follow its methods create such visible benefit that they are often elevated to positions of social or political authority. Read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin for the life of a true theist who gained in rank largely because of his diligent applications of the scientific method to everyday life. He believed in the guiding hand of a benevolent god, yet taught that “God helps he who helps himself”. Very utilitarian.
To knock the methodology of science off of its pedestal in a society would have the same effect now as it did when the Romans did it to Greece. It took a couple of generations to really feel the damage done, and then it was too late. Europe recovered from the loss about 2,000 years later. I don’t want that to happen to my own nation for purely pragmatic, Utilitarian reasons. I don’t want it to happen in other nations, because they try to share their anti-scientific enlightenment in non-utilitarian ways, as on 9/11/2001.
The capitalized Erik to whom Karl refers demonstrated repeatedly that he wears tight blinders to prevent any ideas from penetrating his preconceived conclusions. He was essentially banished from this discussion board for repeatedly violating posted policies after many warnings. He’d be welcome back if he would accept the paradigm of rational discussion of ideas, even though his views are antithetical to those held by several (but not all) of our regular authors.
